Document Display

Initiate a new search within the currently selected document
Show document key fields and properties
Include current hits
Describe the error you saw:
E-mail Address (Highly Recommended)
When you have finished entering your information, click the Submit Error button.

Page 1 of 1079 Previous Page or group of Pages Previous Occurence of Search Term Reload with a larger image Reload with a smaller image

<pubnumber>420R12019</pubnumber>
<title>Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)</title>
<pages>1079</pages>
<pubyear>2012</pubyear>
<provider>NEPIS</provider>
<access>online</access>
<origin>PDF</origin>
<author></author>
<publisher></publisher>
<subject></subject>
<abstract></abstract>
<operator>mja</operator>
<scandate>09/10/12</scandate>
<type>single page tiff</type>
<keyword></keyword>

            Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle
            Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis
            Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle
            (FEV Report)
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
 image: 








        Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle
     Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis —
         Midsize Crossover Utility  Vehicle
                       (FEV Report)
                     Assessment and Standards Division
                    Office of Transportation and Air Quality
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                           Prepared for EPA by
                 Systems Research and Application Corporation
                       EPA Contract No. EP-C-11-007
      NOTICE

      This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or
      positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data
      that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to
      facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of
      technical developments.
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-12-019
August 2012
 image: 








  Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-
    Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize
    Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)
                     Table of Contents
I.  Peer Review of the Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
     Utility Vehicle (FEV Report), Conducted by SRA International
     1. Background                                           p. 5
     2. Description of Review Process                               p. 5
     3. Compilation of Review Comments                             p. 6
     4. References                                           p. 43
     Appendices
       A. Resumes of Peer Reviewers                              p. 44
       B. Conflict of Interest Statements                            p. 56
       C. Peer Review Charge                                   p. 71
       D. Reviews                                           p. 73
II. EPA's Response to Peer Review Comments                            p. 159
 image: 








                               Executive Summary
In December 2011, EPA contracted with SRA International (SRA) to conduct a peer review of Light-Duty
Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report) developed by
FEVandEDAG.

The peer reviewers selected by SRA were William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Glenn Daehn,
Kristina Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State University), Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum),
and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, Srdjan Simunovic and members of
the OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling.  EPA would like to extend its
appreciation to all of the reviewers for their efforts in evaluating this report and the modeling. The
reviewers brought useful and distinctive views in response to the charge questions.

The first section of this document contains the final SRA report summarizing the peer review of the FEV
Report, including the detailed comments of each peer reviewer and a compilation of reviewer
comments according to the series of specific questions set forth in the peer review charge.  The SRA
report also contains the peer reviewers' resumes, completed conflict of interest and bias questionnaires
for each reviewer, and the peer review charge letter. The second  major section contains our responses
to the peer reviewers' comments.  In this section, we repeat the compiled comments provided by SRA
and, after each section of comments, provide our response. We have retained the organization
reflected in SRA's compilation of the comments to aid the reader in moving from the SRA report to our
responses.
 image: 








TO:           Cheryl Caffrey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
              Quality (OTAQ)

FROM:        Brian Menard, SRA International

DATE:         June 27, 2012

SU BJ ECT:      Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
              Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)), developed by FEV and EDAG.


1.  Background

In developing programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty highway vehicles,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has to
evaluate the safety of lightweighted automotive designs as well as the methods and costs of proposed
technologies to achieve this design.

The 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility
Vehicle (FEV Report) is a continuation (e.g., Phase 2 study) of the original Phase 1 Low Development
study from Lotus Engineering. The report reviews the amount of mass reduction in the Low
Development case ("20%") from the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 study. This is done through analysis of
the assumptions for the Body-in-White (BIW), and through an up-to-date re-analysis of light weighting
options for all of the other vehicle components of which the Lotus Engineering assumptions are a part.
An in-depth cost evaluation of all technologies is included. The FEV Report consists of two parts: In the
first part, FEV's contractor, EDAG, has designed  and developed the BIW structure in CAE in order to
demonstrate that it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Light-Duty Vehicles using
LS-DYNA. The analysis includes materials, methods, and related costs to assembly and manufacturing.
The second part of the report is an in-depth investigation of "other than BIW" vehicle systems based
upon discussions with suppliers, Lotus Phase 1 report ideas, and FEV's experience and expertise.

This report documents the peer review of the FEV Report. Section 2 of this memorandum describes the
process for selecting reviewers, administering the review process, and closing the peer review. Section
3 summarizes reviewer comments according to the series of specific questions set forth in matrix
contained in the peer review charge. The appendices to the memorandum contain the peer reviewers'
resumes, completed conflict of interest and bias questionnaires for each reviewer, and the peer review
charge letter.

2.  Description of Review  Process

In December 2011, OTAQ contacted SRA International to facilitate the peer review of the FEV Report.
The model and documentation were developed by FEV and EDAG.

EPA provided SRA with a short list of subject matter experts from academia and industry to serve as a
"starting point" from which to assemble a list of peer reviewer candidates. SRA selected three
independent (as defined in Sections 1.2.6 and 1.2.7 of EPA's Peer Review Handbook, Third Edition)
 image: 








subject matter experts to conduct the requested reviews. SRA selected subject matter experts familiar
with automotive engineering and manufacturing, automotive materials, crash simulation, and cost
assessment.  The coverage of these subject areas is shown below in Table A.

                                          Table A:
                            Peer Reviewer Experience and Expertise
Name
Douglas Richman
William Joost
Srdjan Simunovic
Glenn Daehn
etal.
Affiliation
Kaiser
Aluminum
US DOE
Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory
The Ohio State
University
Coverage
Automotive
materials
Y
Y
Y
Y
Bonding
forming
Y
Y
Y
Y
Manufacturing
assembly
Y
Y
/
Y
Crash
simulation
/
/
Y
/
Cost
assessment
Y
/
/
Y





To ensure the independence and impartiality of the peer review, SRA was solely responsible for
selecting the peer review panel. Appendix A of this report contains the resumes of the three peer
reviewers. A crucial element in selecting peer reviewers was to determine whether reviewers had any
actual or perceived conflicts of interest or bias that might prevent them from conducting a fair and
impartial review of the FEV Report.  SRA required each reviewer to complete and sign a conflict of
interest and bias questionnaire.  Appendix B of this report contains an explanation of the process and
standards for judging conflict and bias along with copies of each reviewer's signed questionnaire.

SRA provided the reviewers a copy of the most recent version of the FEV Report as well as the peer
review charge. The charge included a  matrix of questions issues upon which the reviewers were asked
to comment. Reviewers were also encouraged to provide additional comments, particularly in their
areas of expertise and work experience. Appendix C of this report contains the memo to reviewers from
SRA with the peer review charge.

A teleconference between EPA, FEV, EDAG, the reviewers, and SRA was held to allow reviewers the
opportunity to raise any questions or concerns they might have about the FEV Report and associated
modeling, and to raise any other related issues with EPA and SRA, including  EPA's expectations for the
reviewers' final review comments.  SRA delivered the final review comments to EPA by the requested
date. These reviews, contained in Appendix D of this report, included the reviewers' response to the
specific charge questions and any additional comments they might have had. Individual teleconference
calls were held between EPA, FEV, EDAG, and two of the reviewers, Doug Richman and Srdjan
Simunovic, to elaborate on these reviewers' written comments.

3. Compilation of Review Comments

The FEV Report was reviewed by William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Glenn Daehn, Kristina
Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio  State University (OSU)), Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), and
 image: 








Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, Srdjan Simunovic and members of the
OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling. Appendix A contains detailed
resumes for each of the reviewers. This section provides a compilation of their comments. The
complete comments may be found in Appendix D.
 image: 








    1.  ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA
       SOURCES (CAE BIW and
       Vehicle)
                                                 COMMENTS
Please comment on the validity of
any data sources and assumptions
embedded in the study. Such
items include material choices,
technology choices, vehicle design,
crash validation testing, and cost
assessment that could affect its
findings.
[Joost] The material selection process used in this study suggests a good understanding of the cost and manufacturing
impacts of changing between different steel, Al, Mg, and plastic/composite based materials. Generally the material
selections are appropriate for the performance, manufacturing, and cost requirements of the particular systems.
Identifying production examples of the materials in similar systems is very important for establishing credibility - the
project team did an excellent job identifying production examples of most material replacements. There are, however, a
few material selections where additional consideration may be necessary:

The transmission case subsystem (pg 269) features the use of a Sr bearing Mg alloy. Recently, Sn based alloys have been
produced and (I believe) used in production for similar applications. The use of Sn as an alloying ingredient accomplishes
many of the same goals (improved high temp creep performance, for example) at a lower cost. It may be worth
investigating these new alloys as an opportunity to reduce the cost of the lightweight transmission case subsystem. If not,
the selection of a Sr alloy is reasonable.

The feasibility of using hot rolled blanks in the body structure would be further emphasized by providing production
examples for vehicles of >200k units per year.  Similarly, the use of a 7000 series Al rear bumper is questionable - a
production example for a high volume, low cost vehicle should  be provided.

The use of Thixomolded Mg seat components  should be reconsidered. Thixomolding does have the potential to provide
improved ductility compared  to die casting, however the process is generally not well regarded in the automotive
community due to concerns over limited supply and press tonnage limits (which limit the maximum size of the
components that can be manufactured this way). If there is a production example of thixomolding for >200k unites per
year in automotive, then it should be cited in the report. If there is no example then I would suggest switching to die
casting (or super vacuum die  casting) - the weight reduction  and cost will likely be similar.

It's not clear how the mass savings were achieved in the wheels and tires. The report states that a 2008 Toyota Prius
wheel/tire assembly will be used in place of the stock Venza wheel - however the report also states (pg 544) that the Prius
wheel will be normalized up to the 19"x7" to maintain the original  styling of the Venza. The technology employed in the
Prius wheel is not different from the stock Venza wheel so why should a scaled-up Prius wheel weigh less than the original
Venza wheel? There are also inconsistencies in the report - table F.5-18 references eliminating the spare tire wheel while
downsizing the spare tire - why would there be a tire with  no wheel? Lastly, if the Prius wheel/tire is scaled up to  match
the stock Venza size then the spare wheel/tire must also be scaled up - it's not clear that this happened. You are taking
significant credit for weight reduction in the wheels and tires (~2% of total vehicle weight) but it's not clear how this is
achieved.
                                                                                                                                              8
 image: 








Many of the parts in the frame have been changes to a GF Nylon (pg 667). This may not be unreasonable, but production
examples should be provided.

[Richman]
    1)  NHTSA crash test data was used for validation of collision simulation models and is an appropriate source.
    2)  Material property data was supplied by recognized supplier associations and are correct.
    3)  Cost estimates for reduced mass sheet products seem to include assumption that drive unusually high material
       and equipment cost. This issue leads to a technology cost effectiveness that is not representative of actual
       production experience for sheet  products.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The data and sources appear to be very good, however at the time of this review there are a few
items that are unclear.

First there some statements that are referenced with superscripts, however there is not a reference list that appears in the
document.

Second, this report does an excellent job of documenting at a high-level that the finite element analysis is carried out
properly, showing agreement with masses, stiffness and crash signatures of baseline vehicles. However, it is important
that all of the details be also available to the public, such as the detailed material geometry (mesh files), stress-strain flow-
laws used for  the materials, weld locations (more than a figure), models used for weld behavior and so on. This can be
done by reference or by making the LS-DYNA models public. It is not clear at time of review how this will be done, but it
would be a great service to make all this granular detail available. Similar statements can be made regarding the detail for
components and materials in the costing models.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] The data used appears to be valid and appropriate to the tasks that are completed. Vehicle data for
the Toyota Venza was obtained by scanning the components and creating the CAD models. Material data was found from
appropriate sources and databases. These were used to create a crash test model for the vehicle and for cost estimation. A
thorough search of state-of-the-art vehicle design concepts was used as the basis of mass reduction for the  various vehicle
systems.

[Simunovic] This section contains comments on validity of the data sources, material properties, and modeling
approaches used in this study. The overall methodology used by the FEV is fundamentally solid and adhere to standard
practices of the crashworthiness engineering [5]. However, an in-depth analysis of the model files reveals several areas
that may need to be addressed to fully support the findings of the study.
 image: 








Firstly, as a matter of the established procedures for technical documentation, I suggest that the sources for the material
properties should be clearly referenced; especially since the authors of the FEV study worked on similar projects for steel
industry consortia [6]. Similar projects on concept vehicles [7,8] also offer guidelines on the reporting. It would also be very
helpful to readers to graphically depict mechanical properties such as material stress-strain curves, failure envelopes, etc.

Secondly, the technologically important issues with the high strength metallic materials, such as Advanced High Strength
Steels (AHSS) [9], are their special processing requirements [10], reduction in ductility, higher possibility of fracture [11-14]
(especially under high strain rates [15-17]), and joining [18-22]. Many AHSSs derive their superior mechanical properties
from their tailored microstructures, which get strongly affected during welding. Active research in welding of the AHSS
shows possibilities of significant reductions of the joint strengths due to the softening processes in Heat Affected Zone
(HAZ). Therefore, the strength values for the welds in the current LD model (i.e. SIGY=1550 for MAT_SPOTWELD section in
the input files) seems very optimistic, and may need to be reduced or elaborated upon in the report. Several versions of
the reports were distributed  and I may have very well missed an updated version. In case that joining discussion is indeed
restricted to one page as it appears in the current FEV document, I would suggest that weld properties and constitutive
models be given additional attention in the final report.

Third important issue that I would suggest to be addressed is modeling of failure/fracture of the high strength materials in
the LD models. Despite long research on the subject, the methods for modeling localization and failure are relatively
scarce. There is still  no wide consensus on how to model failure in materials. For the FEV study, special attention should be
given to the joint areas (spot welds, laser welds) that can  experience the degradation of properties due to the thermo-
mechanical cycles that they have been exposed to. A simple way of addressing the above points would be to use failure
limit strains in plasticity models that are used in the FEV models, i.e MAT_PIECEWISELINEAR_PLASTICITY. In this approach a
limit strain  is assigned to material, and after that limit strain is reached in a finite element, the element is gradually
removed from the simulation. The values for the failure strains are dependent on mesh and element discretization, where
additional simulations should be conducted to correlate energy to failure to the corresponding physical failure process
zone for the given problem.
                                                                                                              10
 image: 








If you find issues with data sources
and assumptions, please provide
suggestions for available data that
would improve the study.
[Joost] Two plastic technologies are very widely employed in this design: PolyOne and MuCell. It seems that the
companies who license/manufacture these technologies were used as the primary source to determine feasibility.
However they are likely to be optimistic regarding the capability of their materials. I agree that these materials are
appropriate for the indicated applications, however I feel that the credibility would be improved by including other sources
                                 (OEMs, Tier 1) or more production examples for existing platforms. With such a large amount of weight reduction
                                 attributed to PolyOne and MuCell, it would be beneficial to have a very strong case for capabilities.

                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] See above.

                                 [OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Richman] This report is a review the 2012 FEV project to identify mass-reduction opportunities for a crossover sport utility vehicle based on the 2009 Toyota
Venza. This study is a continuation of the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Low Development (LD) study funded by the Internal Council on Sustainable Transportation
(ICCT) in 2010. Goal of the FEV project is to identify practical mass reduction technologies to achieve a 20% reduction in total vehicle mass (342 Kg) at no more
than 10% increase in consumer cost while meeting, or exceeding, all crashworthiness, performance and customer  satisfaction  attributes provided by the
baseline vehicle.
Body of the  baseline vehicle is 31% of total vehicle  mass and has a dominant influence on NVH and collision performance of the total vehicle. This project
involved extensive engineering analysis of the vehicle body. BIW and closure materials and gauges were optimization to exploit the maximum mass reduction
potential from advanced low mass automotive materials and advanced manufacturing processes. Mass reduction  initiatives are identified for all  vehicle
systems including engine, transmission,  interior, suspension and chassis systems.  Most materials, manufacturing processes and components selected for the
FEV vehicle technology package are proven, cost effective and available for use on 2017 production vehicles.
Majority of mass  reduction concepts utilized  are consistent with recognized industry trends. Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components
appear reasonable and consistent with industry experience with similar components. As an advanced design concept study this is an important and useful body
of work. Results of the project provide useful insight into potential vehicle mass reduction achievable with HSS and AHSS materials.
This report is a review of the methodologies employed, technologies selected and validity of findings in the FEV study.  This reviewer has experience in vehicle
mass reduction engineering of body, engine and suspension systems. This review focuses on those areas of the FEV project.
[OSU - Kristina  Kennedy]  "Building a full vehicle model w/o the use of drawings or CAD  data..."  Has this method of tear-down + scanning been proven out in
industry or in other projects to understand how closely this method would correlate with actual data? Is this basically "reverse engineering" and is that an
acceptable method?

[OSU -Tony Luscher] Data sources are well documented in the report and will aid if any additional investigation is needed. Several of them were checked for
validity.


                                                                                                                                             11
 image: 








[Simunovic] In this document I review the methods, data, and the FEM crash models developed in the FEV study. The models were evaluated based on the
analysis of the computational simulation results and on based on the analysis of the actual model files. I want to emphasize that the scope of my review is on
the computational simulations of the vehicle crashworthiness and on the modeling approaches employed by the FEV and its contractors. The primary source for
my review were the FEV final draft report, the crash animations generated by the FEV, and the computer simulation output files for the NCAP and the ODB
crash test configurations. Two vehicle crash models were available, the baseline and the LD model. As it will be shown in the following sections, my review was
based to a large extent on the vehicle model files. Very often in the current practice, the actual  model files are not sufficiently scrutinized and are evaluated
only through the resulting computational simulations.  In the case of large complex FEM models, such as car crash models, the model's configuration complexity
and its shear size can obscure the important details of  the response  and camouflage the sources of errors in the model. That is particularly common when the
technology envelope of the state-of-the-art is expanded, as is the case with ever-increasing sizes and complexities of the car crash models.
                                                                                                                                            12
 image: 








    2.  VEHICLE DESIGN
       METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
       CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                                                  COMMENTS
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art design
methods have been employed and
the extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor. You are encouraged to
provide comments on the
information contained within the
unencrypted model provided by
EDAG; the technologies chosen by
FEV; and the resulting final vehicle
design.
[Joost] The report uses a (very thorough) piece-wise approach to weight reduction - each system is broken down and
weight reduction opportunities for the individual components are identified. The weight-reduced components are then
reassembled into the final vehicle. I believe that this provides a conservative estimate for the weight reduction potential of
the Venza, where a vehicle-level redesign would provide greater weight reduction. However, I am also of the opinion that
the approach used here is in line with industry practice so; while this may not yield the maximum reasonable weight
reduction, it is likely to yield a value more in-line with industry-achievable weight reduction.

It is particularly helpful (and credible) to see descriptions technologies that were considered, but abandoned due to
performance concerns (e.g. reverting to a timing belt), manufacturing capabilities, (e.g. using a MuCell manifold), and cost
(e.g. Mg oil pan).

The suspension design process lacks sufficient detail to make the cost and weight estimates credible. Considerable Al is
used to replace steel at a very minimal cost penalty. However, as the report indicates, detailed design and validation is
necessary to confirm that these changes would be viable for the Venza. For example, changing to a hollow Al control bar is
not an industry standard practice and the use of a  hollow section may require significant changes to geometry in order to
meet the stiffness and strength requirements. While a hollow Al control bar is feasible,  I'm not confident that it can be
substituted into the design so easily.  A $0.40/kg-saved cost penalty for changing a significant number of components from
mild steel to Al seems to be an underestimate.

[Richman]
    1)  EDAG performed structural modeling. The EDAG organization is widely recognized as technically competent and
       highly experienced in modeling of auto body structure.  Modeling approach appears technically robust and logical.
    2)  Body structural analysis utilized industry recognized CAE, CAD and collision modeling analysis tools and protocols.
       Tools used are state-of-the -art and the approach.
    3)  FE model was validated against physical test data for NVH and collision performance. Model correlation with
       physical test results is very good. No significant discrepancies or inconsistencies have been  identified in the
       modeling results.
    4)  Based on these observation, the models would be considered valid  and reliable for moderate A:B design
       comparisons that are the subject of this vehicle study.
                                                                                                                                              13
 image: 








                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn]  The work is well done and technically rigorous. Again, we encourage making all pertinent detail
                                 publicly available.

                                 [OSU -Tony Luscher]  The report does an excellent job of using state-of-the-art design methods. The re-engineering
                                 process included vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and data collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model.
                                 This raw STL geometry was then translated into an FE meshing tool (ANSA) to create a finite element model.

                                 [Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with the development of the baseline FEM model
                                 of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry scanning,
                                 component analysis, material characterization and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for
                                 this process by the FEV is quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the definition of
                                 joints and assembly of the overall model.

                                 The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular
                                 elements. The mesh density is mostly uniform and without large variations in the FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios.
                                 The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal which is a very small amount given the
                                 complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for the baseline vehicle model.

                                 There are no apparent geometry conflicts in the model and  parts are well aligned with compatible geometries and FEM
                                 meshes. This is essential for accurate modeling of currently the prevailing joining method for sheet metals, spot welding.
                                 The level of geometrical detail in the model is very high and as someone who has been involved with the vehicle
                                 crashworthiness modeling for the last twenty years, I think that the developed FEM mesh of the Venza BIW is the current
                                 state-of-the-art. Figure 4 shows some details of the BIW FEM mesh that  illustrate the prevalence of the quadrilateral shell
                                 finite elements, constant aspect ratios and presence of the geometry details that are necessary for an adequate modeling
                                 of the progressive structural crush.
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the technologies
and materials selected, forming
techniques, bonding processes,
and parts integration.
[Joost] The forming, joining, and integration techniques used in the report were analyzed only by referencing production
examples or companies who produce similar products. Detailed design work would certainly include a more thorough
analysis of the manufacturing techniques however for the scope of this report I believe that the level of analysis is
appropriate.

[Richman]
    1)  Body:  Process used to select materials, grades and gauges for the mass optimized body sub-group is technically
       sound and thorough.  Election of laser welding of structurally significant body panels indicates deployment of
       advanced manufacturing process where appropriate.
    2)Non-body:  Methodology used to identify, screen and select non-body mass reduction technologies is thorough,
                                                                                                                                            14
 image: 








       detailed and highly effective.  Munro Associates lead this segment of the project. Munro is recognized as being
       technically competent, highly experienced, knowledgeable and creative in benchmarking and lean engineering of
       automotive and non-automotive systems.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] All is in accord with the state of the art. It is not clear how welds are represented in the FE-Model,
without dissection of the LS-DYNA input stacks.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] The Toyota body repair manual was used to identify the material grades of the major parts of the
body structure. These material grades were then validated by material coupon testing.

The MSC Nastran solver was used to solve for the bending and torsion stiffness of the body in white model. Good
correlation was achieved between physical stiffness testing and FEA stiffness results.

[Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with  the development of the baseline FEM model
of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a  reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry scanning,
component analysis, material characterization and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for
this process by the FEV is quite impressive. Equally  impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the definition of
joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular
elements. The mesh density is mostly uniform and  without large variations in the FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios.
The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal  which is a very small amount given the
complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for the baseline vehicle model.

In the following, I first give the analysis of the baseline FEM model. The baseline FEM model is very adept and can be used
for illustration of some shortcomings of the LD model that I think need to be addressed. It is important to note that the LD
model is much more complex due to a large  number of materials and gages that resulted from the computational
optimization process. This complexity and the project time constraints dramatically increase the potential for error.
Unfortunately the tools for managing such complex systems are not yet mature, making the development and the
evaluation of this complex vehicle model very challenging. Over the years, I have developed several simple programs that
can be used to debug FEM models by directly analyzing the model files. The common approach to evaluation of large FEM
models is to almost exclusively consider computational simulation results. However, these simple tools allow for
evaluations of relationships within the FEM models directly from the model input files, thereby enabling debugging of the
models independently from the simulations.
                                                                                                           15
 image: 








Review of the FEM Model for the Baseline Toyota Venza

The primary material for the BIW of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, was identified in the Lotus Phase 1 Report as
mild steel. Lotus Phase 1 study stated that the BIW also had about 8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa designation, while
everything else was commonly used mild steel sheet material. The FEV/EDAG study showed that there was more variety to
the baseline design then originally anticipated. Table 1 lists the materials used in the BIW model (file Venza_biw_r006.k)
that were modeled using MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY). Aluminum bumper was modeled using
MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK material model in LS-DYNA. The number of material models is relatively small.

Most of the CAE tools display the FEM model based on their part identification number (ID). To verify the material model
assignment one must then verify material assignment for every part and then sort them accordingly. For large complex
models this is a  very tedious process that is very error prone.  More advanced CAE tools, such as HyperMesh, have options
for grouping and displaying model entities by material types and IDs. Figure 5 displays the material assignments for the
baseline BIW.

The specific assignment of the materials for the BIW and the corresponding stress-strain curves are shown in the figures
below. Most of the material models account for strain rate sensitivity of the material. For a given plastic strain, the yield
stress is calculated by interpolating stresses between two neighboring stress strain curves based on the applied strain rate.
There are established modeling recommendations for modeling strain rate sensitivity effect in crash models. The specified
stress strain  curves should not intersect. Extrapolated lines from their last specified linear segment should not intersect, as
well. The material models should use plastic strain rate [23] instead of the total strain rate as the basis of the strain rate
effect calculation. This option (VP=1)  was not used in the FEV models although it is highly recommended in practice.

Figures 6-10 show the main material systems for the baseline BIW model. The material assignments correspond to the
assignments in the project's report.

The stress-strain curves for different strain rates in the above figures do not intersect. Their extrapolations however have
potential for intersection at high plastic strains in Figures 7and 8. The number of the data points in Figures 9 and 10 are  too
large and needs to be reduced in order to avoid the interpolation errors by the simulation program. It is obvious that
curves in Figures 9 and 10 were developed by analytical fits. Such approach can create undesirable artifacts such as an
appearance of the yield point elongation for Dual Phase steel  in Figure 10. An interpolation approach with fewer points
and curves is recommended. Figure 11 illustrates the optimal  piecewise linear interpolation (green curve) of the base (red)
curve in Figure 10. The interpolated curve has error of 1% of the value range with respect to the actual curve and uses only
9 points.

Next, the BIW sheet material thickness distribution is shown in Figure 12. The colors indicate symmetrical distributions in

                                                                                                             16
 image: 








accordance with the specified thickness distribution in the project report.

In many situations, the accuracy of the crash simulation is dependent on the shell element formulation (type) used. The
basic shell element formulation (reduced integration Belytschko-Tsay, LS-DYNA type 2) is computationally very efficient
but has lower accuracy than more complex formulations such as the fully-integrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element (LS-
DYNA type 16). Figure 12 shows the shell element formulations in the BIW model. The current crash modeling
recommendation is to use shell element type 16 when possible. The Bathe-Dvorkin shell is 3.5 times more computationally
expensive than the Belytschko-Tsay shell so that in order to strike a proper balance between the accuracy and the
computational speed element types can be mized in the model. This is especially true when large number of simulations is
conducted, as was the case for computational optimization in the FEV study. As it can be seen in Figure 16, the baseline
model employs accurate element formulation in the main structural components, while the Belytschko-Tsay formulation is
employed in the remainder of the sheet metal which is an appropriate compromise for the large scale computations.

Another important technical aspect of the crash simulations with the shell elements is the employed number of
integration points through the thickness of the shells. The default (2 points) is insufficient for the crash analyses. Three
points is also inadequate in the current simulation guidelines because it results in a very quick formation of plastic hinges
in the sheet metal during crush. A minimum of 5 through-thickness  integration points is currently recommended for the
crash  simulations. Therefore, modification of the model in this regard is suggested for the general release.

Another commonly overlooked formulation aspect for the shell elements is the through thickness shear factor.
Recommended value is 0.833, which was used only in bumper structures of the current model (Figure 14). Changing the
factor to 0.833 is recommended.

In summary, the baseline Venza FEM model is developed  following most of the recommended development procedures
for crash models. The modifications suggested above would meet few additional recommendations that would likely
increase the robustness of the model.. The NCAP and the side MDB barrier simulation results can be compared with the
actual crash tests conducted by NHTSA. The comparison of the simulation  and the NCAP test shows somewhat stiffer
response of the FEM model with respect to the test (Figure 1.18.18  in the last FEV report). The maximum and the average
accelerations in the FEM model were accordingly higher than the test results. The baseline FEM model was  deemed
acceptable for the purposes of the FEV study. Another important measure of the FEM model fidelity was the crash
duration time that was 20 ms shorter for the model compared to the test. This difference is noticeable because the overall
crash  duration of 100 milliseconds. However, for the objectives of the FEM study, the model's crash pulse was deemed
acceptable, which for the described project schedule seemed  quite  reasonable.
                                                                                                          17
 image: 








Review of the Low Development Vehicle Model

The FEV engineers have used the computational optimization methods based on the response surface formulation in order
to determine the distribution of material types and grades that would maximally reduce the weight of the vehicle while
maintaining the performance and controlling the cost. The part distribution of the resulting optimized LD design FEM
model is shown in Figure 15.

It is probably misleading to refer to the resulting FEM model as "Low Development" since it is a product of numerous
computational simulations and an in-depth engineering study. The resulting inventory of the material models used in the
LD FEM model is listed in Table 2. It is evident that there are numerous duplicates as well as unused materials. It would be
prudent to purge the list of material models from the LD FEM model as they may lead to  errors. Some of the
inconsistencies that were found in the current LD FEM model may very well be a result of this model redundancy.

Two model files contain most of the material models:
    •   Venza_master_mat_list_r006.k
    •   Venza_Material_Db_Opt_dk2.k

The horizontal black line in Table 2 separates the material model specifications between the two files. These two were
unchanged for the last two versions of the FEM models that were downloaded from the project download site.

Figures 16-32 below show the stress-strain curves for the materials used in the BIW of the LD  FEM model.

There are obvious duplicates in the model specifications that would be prudent to eliminate and modify the model
accordingly before its public release. In addition, there are some errors in the LD FEM model specifications that need to be
corrected.

Correction Item 1:

Material ID 9 (Figure 30) has stress-strain curves for different strain rates different strain  rate  curves intersect which is not
acceptable from the physical perspective.

Materials with IDs 8000006, 8000007, and 8000008 have elastic properties of lightweight materials such as Aluminum and
Magnesium alloys, but they utilize yield stress functions of HSLA 350/450 steel defined in file:
Venza_frt_susp_exhaust_30ms.k.

Currently, only the material 8000006 is used in the LD FEM model, although in the previous model version material ID

                                                                                                           18
 image: 








8000008 was also used.

Correction Item 2:

Some material assignments in the LD FEM model are inconsistent which is probably a result of too many material models.
The mapping of material IDs on the BIW FEM model reveal several unsymmetrical model assignments. The most obvious
discrepancy is marked in Figure 33. Here, where one model part is modeled using the mild steel while its corresponding
symmetrical  counterpart is modeled using the HSLA 350/450 steel.

Additional unsymmetrical material assignments are pointed with arrows in Figures 34-37.

Two possible outcomes of not pairing the symmetrical components with the same material ID are illustrated in Figures 36-
37. In Figure 36 the two different parts have different material assignments, which eventually refer to different material
properties. In case of the marked parts in Figure 37, the material IDs are different but because of the repeated material
models with  different IDs, they eventually refer to the same material properties.

The above inconsistencies need to be corrected before the models are released into to the open domain.

Correction Item 3:

Another area of concern is the number of through thickness integration points for the shell elements in the current LD FEM
model. As it can be seen in Figure 38, almost all shell elements have just 2 integration points through the thickness. This is
clearly inadequate from the accuracy standpoint  and may be responsible for some of the issuable simulation results shown
in the following figures.

Correction Item 4:

Figure 38 shows the thickness distribution in the  LD FEM model of the BIW. In general, the thickness distribution is
symmetrical  with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. However, a closer inspection reveals some asymmetries in
thickness assignments.

The arrows in Figures 40-41 show the parts that do not have symmetrical assignment of the values with respect to the
centerline of the vehicle. I  have not checked the extent of the differences, but  it something nonetheless that needs to be
corrected.
                                                                                                           19
 image: 








                                 Concern Item 1:

                                 The following Figures 42-45 show some results that may warrant more investigation by the project engineers. Figures 42-
                                 43 show the deformation of the main front rails for the baseline vehicle during the NCAP test simulation. The overall
                                 deformation  is symmetrical. In the case of the LD FEM model, as shown in Figures 44-45, the deformation is markedly
                                 different from the baseline and unsymmetrical. The cause for that may be in the unsymmetrical material assignments for
                                 the main rails that were present in the previous LD FEM model release and the simulations may have been based on that
                                 version. As I was only using the simulation files, I could not tell if that was actually the case. However, I strongly suggest
                                 following up on this point as these rails are extremely important for the crash energy management.

                                 Concern Item 2:

                                 One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional mild steel vehicle designs is modeling of
                                 material fracture/failure [24].  However, in the case of the high strength materials, such as the AHSS, the material fracture
                                 is a real possibility that needs to be included in the models. One of the easiest failure models to implement is to specify
                                 equivalent strain threshold for the material failure. Once  this threshold is reached during crash simulation it leads to
                                 gradual element deletion, which simulates crack formation. I would suggest consideration of such a simple model
                                 enhancement that, while not comprehensive enough for  production design, is probably sufficient for the purposes of the
                                 FEV study. The strain rate sensitivity of the material models would help with the regularization of the strain localization
                                 and related numerical problems [25].
If you are aware of better methods
employed and documented
elsewhere to help select and
analyze advanced vehicle materials
and design engineering rigor for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Everything appears to be well-done and in accord with the state of the art.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None known.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] FE Meshing Tool, ANSA. Did a quick Google search and did not find this product. Am familiar with ANSYS and others, but is ANSA an
industry-standard tool? Just confirming the wide-use of such a tool out of curiosity.

[Richman] The team of FEV, EDAG and Munro is an outstanding coalition of industry experts with the unique skills and expertise necessary to meet the
objectives of this project.
                                                                                                                                            20
 image: 








Mass reduction efforts were organized into two segments: body and non-body.  Body mass reduction focused on selection of materials (steel, aluminum,
plastics and magnesium), grades and gauges.  Baseline Venza body design was not changed. Non-body mass reduction efforts examined all vehicle systems for
potential cost effective mass  reduction  opportunities.   FEV utilized technical  support  from two recognized, technically qualified and  highly  respected
engineering services organizations: EDAG and Munro and Associates.
EDAG focused on body structural engineering and cost modeling. They conducted detailed reverse engineering study the baseline Venza to establish baseline
vehicle mass  and structural characteristics and develop CAE, FE and collision simulation models.  Calibrated FE models were used to develop an  optimized
Venza body structure.  EDAG Engineering analysis  is thorough and reflects the high level of vehicle engineering expertise and  know-how within  the EDAG
organization.  Modeling and simulation technologies utilized by EDAG are state-of-the art and EDAG has recognized competencies in effectively deploying those
tools.
The EDAG work presents a realistic perspective of achievable vehicle structure mass reduction using available design optimization tools, practical engineering
materials and available manufacturing processes.  EDAG cost modeling of the baseline and reduced mass vehicle structures.
Munro lead the process of identifying, analyzing, screening and selecting cost effective mass reduction opportunities in all vehicle systems. Munro is a highly
respected engineering organization specializing in benchmarking and lean product design.  Munro process for achieving product mass and cost optimization is
well  developed and highly  effective.  They utilize  a creative mix  of functional analysis,  competitive benchmarking, cross industry comparisons, advanced
materials and manufacturing process knowledge and sound engineering analysis. This segment of the study identified a significant number of practical mass
reduction concepts in all 20 vehicle sub-groups. The majority of mass reduction technologies selected for the final design are in some current level  of volume
production and appear cost effective and realistically achievable by 2017.
FEV decomposed the total vehicle into 20 sub-systems. Each sub-system was aggressively  examined to identify realistically achievable and cost effective mass
reduction opportunities. Majority of mass reduction achieved (90%) is concentrated in (7) vehicle sub-systems:
                                 Mass
                               Reduction
              Body          68 Kg
              Suspension     69
              Interior       42
              Brakes         41
              Engine         30
              Transmission   19
              Frame, Mounts 17
                                                                                                                                              21
 image: 








These 7 sub-systems account for over 90% of the cost increases and decreases in this project.
This reviewer has experience in light weighting of body, suspension and engine systems.  Comments in the following sections are limited to those vehicle sub-
groups.
A significant number of creative and innovative mass reduction ideas were developed and selected for the remaining (17) sub-systems not discussed in this
report. Many of the ideas appear to be appropriate consideration as part of a total vehicle efficiency improvement effort.
Body Optimization Overview
Body Sub-system includes: Body-in-White (BIW), Closures, Hood, Doors, Lift Gate, Fenders. This sub-system is the highest mass sub-group at 529  Kg, 31% of
total vehicle mass.   Body group design and material selection have a  dominant influence on vehicle  NVH and collision performance.  For that  reason,
optimization of the body structure is a major focus of this project.
       Body sub-system -     BIW, Closures, Bumper, Fenders
       Optimization results -   71 Kg mass reduction
                             $230 cost increase

FEV body mass reduction 68 Kg. (21 % of total vehicle mass reduction)
Baseline Toyota Venza body elements (BIW, closures, bumpers) are predominantly a mix of mild steel (48%) and HSS (49%) with a resulting mass of 529 Kg (31%
of total Venza mass). This mix of materials represents a comprehensive use of automotive grade steels available when the Venza was originally designed.
Body related mass reductions from this baseline are indicative of improvements made possible by advances in materials technology.
Venza baseline BIW structure was used for both the Lotus "Low Development" and EDAG material optimization analysis.  Both studies reduced BIW mass by
similar amounts, Lotus LD: 61 Kg,  EDAG: 54 Kg. Differences between Lotus and EDAG structures  include: specific material grades and gauges and joining
technology.  Lotus  LD structure used conventional resistance spot welding while  the EDAG structure  included  continuous  laser  welding for structurally
significant joints. BIW mass for the two structures are similar:
               BIW Structure Mass
               Baseline              386 Kg
               Lotus Venza LD 325  Kg (-15.8%)
               EDAG Venza           332 Kg (-14%)
Significant difference  bending and torsional stiffness between the Lotus and EDAG structures (20%) do not appear to be fully explained  by the  relative
difference in mass between the structures. Structural stiffness for a constant shape is dependent on material gauge and modulus and not influenced by
strength properties.  Auto body stiffness can be increased by improving attachment integrity. It would be helpful to understand the influence of  laser seam

                                                                                                                                            22
 image: 








welding on body NVH and collision performance.
Body Optimization
Body optimization was accomplished using EDAG  body mass optimization process.  The calibrated Venza FEA model was used.  In this process alternate
material type, grade and gauge were evaluated for NVH and collision performance. Baseline Venza body structure was not altered. Materials evaluated include
advanced high strength steels (AHSS), aluminum, magnesium, plastics. Material gauges were selected based on component part requirements (NVH, Collision)
and properties of specific materials. The body mass optimization process explored the potential of HSS, AHSS, aluminum, magnesium and plastics.
Optimized body structure content summary:
              Baseline   Optimized   Mass
              Mass      Mass       Reduction
       BIW   386.0 Kg  324.0
                            Materials Change
            51.0 Kg (13.2%)     HSS, AHSS, Gauge
       Doors   95.7
95.6
       Hood   17.8      10.1

       Lift Gate  15.1       7.7

       Fenders   6.8       4.9

       Bumpers   7.5     7.5

             528.9 Kg   457.7 Kg
BIW Optimization
              7.7 (43%)
              7.2 (48%)
              1.9 (28%)
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
             71.2 Kg (13.5%)
The EDAG optimized BIW is predominantly HSS and AHSS with appropriate gauge reductions. Baseline Venza is composed of 78% mild steel and 22% HSS. This
material mix is representative of a comprehensive use of available materials at the time this Venza model was designed.  The optimization process selected HSS
and AHSS for over 80% of structure.
This study provides insight into practical BIW mass reductions achievable with recent and anticipated  near term future advancements in automotive steels.
                                                                                                                                          23
 image: 








Using AHSS  aggressively with resultant gauge reductions achieved an 13.2% reduction in BIW mass (3% reduction in total vehicle mass). This finding is
consistent with similar investigations on the part of OEM organizations in North America and Europe.
Aluminum was selected for the hood, lift gate and fenders.  Mass reduction achieved for those components were: Hood: 43%, Lift gate: 48% and Fenders: 28%.
Selection of aluminum for these body components is consistent with OEM production experience and several independent organization studies. The magnitude
of mass reduction achieved in this body group is also consistent with production experience.
Body Modeling - Comments
The following observations are submitted in the interest of completeness and do not diminish validity of findings and conclusions of the overall project.
Body Modeling - Service Loads
Vehicle models developed in this study are valid and useful for the intended scope of this project.  Models addresses overall bending and torsional stiffness,
free body modal frequencies, roof strength, and four crash test load cases.  These are good  indicators and cover many of the primary structural performance
concerns.
This analysis does not address what are commonly referred to as "service loads," including jacking, twist ditch, pothole impacts, 2G bumps, towing loads,
running loads, etc.  Running loads are typically suspension loads for a variety of conditions to address strength, stiffness and fatigue durability of the body and
suspension attachment  structures  and points.  Without these other considerations,  the  optimization process could may unrealistically  reduce mass  in
components that have little effect on overall body stiffness or strength, yet are important for  durability.
Body Modeling - Deformable Barrier
Modeling of deformable barriers has historically been an issue. Source, nature or origination of the deformable barriers (moving and fixed) used in this project
are not explained. In the offset deformable barrier crash test load cases, overall deformations, including barrier deformations are reported.  The reporting
does, however, raise a modeling concern.  Barrier deformations of over 515 mm are reported for the offset tests. The IIHS deformable barrier has 540 mm
thickness of deformable material.  It is not expected to compress completely.  Excessive barrier deformation has the  potential  to  change the overall
acceleration and deformation scenarios reported and influence the mass optimization process.
Body Modeling - Average Acceleration
Overall acceleration issues are not reported in a format normally used by collision development engineers. Charts of unfiltered acceleration pulses are shown
and comparisons are made by evaluation of peak accelerations.  "Average accelerations" are referred to, but in this report average is the average of left and
right side peak accelerations.
Average acceleration as represented by the slope of the filtered velocity/time curve is commonly used to evaluate relative collision performance of a structure.
Common practice is to try to steepen the curve in the early portion of the crash sequence (up to perhaps 50 ms) and to try to flatten the curve in the later parts.
The logic has to do with the motions of a restrained occupant within the structure.  In addition, total velocity change, including rebound, is typically reviewed.
As an example, increasing front structure strength can increase restitution and rebound, which increases the overall change in velocity,  or Delta-V, and can
have adverse effects on overall occupant performance.  While peak accelerations are useful, unfiltered peaks can  be misleading due to the noise/vibration
effect, and at best represent only a partial analysis.

                                                                                                                                               24
 image: 








Body Modeling - Stiffness in Collision Simulation
In evaluating the performance of the optimized body structure, the analysts in general considered "less deformation" of the body structure to equate to "better
performance."  Less deformation may be an index of structural stiffness but is not necessarily an indication of better collision performance. Less deformation
generally equates to higher decelerations and resulting forces on the occupant.  It is likewise generally desirable to efficiently use as much of the allowable free
crush space as possible, not less.
Body Modeling - Door Opening
Part of the rear impact analysis includes an analysis of rear door opening  deformation and an estimate of door openability  post-crash.  While this is an
interesting and useful analysis, it is not explained why it is done. It is not a required aspect of the regulations. Since it is in the report, a similar analysis should
probably be done for the front door openings in the front crash test load cases. Most if not all manufacturers have an in-house  requirement that front doors
must be openable following a standard front crash test.
Non-body Design Optimization
This project included a major engineering effort to identify practical mass reduction opportunities in non-body component groups. A rigorous process  was
followed to identify potential  mass reduction concepts.  This process selected a extraordinary number of technologies that were judged to  be practical, cost
effective and in volume production now or will be in production by 2017.  A few of the larger mass reduction ideas are discussed in the following sections.
Non-body mass reduction ideas selected for the final FEV vehicle design  resulted in a 21% reduction in non-body sub-group mass reduction.  A portion of the
mass reduction achieved in this area was  the result of vehicle mass  reduction  (engine,  wheels, tires). The  majority of non-body mass reductions are
independent of other reductions in vehicle mass.
Suspension
       Suspension sub-system -      Wheels, Tires, Shock Absorbers,
                                    Steering Knuckles, Control Arms, Springs,...
       Optimization results -          69 Kg mass reduction
                                    $0 cost  increase
       Major  mass reductions in this group are:
       Wheels and Tires      32.8 Kg Resized to new weight
       Shock  absorber        14.1   New light weight design
       Front Control Arm      1.9    Convert to Aluminum
       Front and Rear Knuckle 12.6   Conversion to Cast Aluminum
       Front and Rear Sta.  Bar  7.0   Innovative Al tube concept

                                                                                                                                              25
 image: 








       Other                  0.6
Wheels
Downsizing wheels and tires (5) for the 317 Kg (18.5%) reduction in total vehicle mass is appropriate and is a normal consideration in OEM weight reduction
programs. Wheel and tire combinations selected represent a 22% mass reduction from the reduction for these components. This magnitude of mass reduction
is potentially achievable, but must be considered somewhat aggressive.
Knuckles
Conversion of steering knuckles to cast  aluminum is  a  proven strategy.  Estimated mass reduction by conversion to aluminum is 38% of knuckle  mass.
Approximately 35% of knuckles on vehicles built in North America use aluminum knuckles. Mass reduction achieved in those programs range from 35% to 45%
depending on knuckle configuration.  Knuckle mass reduction assessment in this study is achievable.
Control Arms
Conversion of the front control arm to forged aluminum results in a vehicle mass reduction of 2 Kg.  Baseline Venza control arm design is typical of a design
used widely throughout the industry. A significant proportion of these arms are produced in aluminum.  Mass reduction estimates for conversion of this
component is typical of the reductions seen in similar production programs.
Shock Absorber, Sway Bars
Reduced mass shock absorber/strut designs and the tubular sway bars are innovative concepts. Cost reduction of $58 is attributed to the reduced mass shock
absorber concept. Production viability and cost of this ideas is not known to this reviewer.
System Cost
Total cost for mass reductions in this group is estimated to be net $0. Cost savings resulting from downsized wheels and tires ($79) and low mass shock
absorbers ($58) offset cost increases for low mass arms, knuckles and stabilizer bars.
Engine
       Optimization results -   30.4 Kg mass reduction
                             $ 43.96 cost reduction
Main sources of engine mass reduction:
       Downsizing - constant performance     10.4 Kg (2.7 L to 2.4 L)
       Cylinder Block - Al Mg  Hybrid, liners     7.1
       Valve train - Al castings, power metal    3.7
       Cooling system - plastic housings        2.6

                                                                                                                                            26
 image: 








       Timing Drive - Plastic covers            1.5
       Other                                5.1
Engine - Downsizing
Largest mass (10.4 Kg) reduction came from downsizing the engine to a smaller displacement to maintaining baseline Venza performance levels. Assessing
appropriate engine weight for a downsized engine is a complex task. Changing displacement within a basic engine achieves small incremental mass reductions.
A broader perspective was used in this study. Based on competitive engine technology assessments, an engine was selected representing mass optimization
for the 2.4 L displacement. Mass of the new engine was adjusted based on sound engineering analysis to meet packaging and performance parameters of the
baseline engine-vehicle package.  This approach represents  an innovative, thorough  and well-engineered approach to estimating optimized engine mass
reduction resting from vehicle mass reduction.
Developing a new engine involves massive investments in design, development and manufacturing.  Production engines are designed for use in a  broad range
of vehicles and for a period of time spanning several vehicle design cycles. Manufacturers may not have the opportunity to provide a mass optimized engine
for a specific vehicle.
The majority of engine mass reduction ideas selected for the FEV Venza exploit recent advances in materials and/or manufacturing technologies.  Many small
gains were made converting cast iron housings to cast aluminum, and cast aluminum covers and brackets to cast magnesium or plastic.  Most of the engine
mass reduction ideas selected have been proven in multiple high volume applications over several years.  A few engine Ideas have less proven high volume field
experience and were identified by FEV as "D" level selection candidates.
                                                                                                                                            27
 image: 








    3.  VEHICLE
    CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING
    METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
    (CAE only)
                                                 COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the vehicle body
structure's structural integrity
(NVH, etc.) and safety
crashworthiness.
[Joost] The baseline testing and comparison process (pgs. 67-128) is very thorough. The team establishes credibility in the
proposed design by performing an initial baseline comparison against the production Venza - this suggests that the
modeling techniques used can reasonably predict the performance of the lightweight design. It is unfortunate that the
deformation mode comparisons could not be made quantitative (or semi-quantitative) somehow. Comparing how the
model and test look after a crash gives an indication of deformation mode,  but the comparison seems subjective. For
example, image D-28 (pg 95) seems to show slightly different failure mechanisms in the CAE model versus the real test.

The report notes that the bushing mountings were rigid in the model while they likely failed in the real vehicle. I would
expect that these failures are designed into the vehicle to support crash energy management. The results crash pulses (pg
98) for the model and test look fairly similar, but it is unfortunate that this crash energy mechanism was not captured.

The intrusion correlation for the baseline model is very good. This again adds credibility to the modeling approach used
here.

On page 386 the report states that the Mg CCB was not included in the crash or NVH analysis. Replacing a steel CCB with
Mg is  likely to have a significant impact on both crash and NVH performance. The technology is viable (and has been used
on production vehicles as stated) however the crash energy management and NVH performance must be offset by adding
weight elsewhere in the vehicle. The CCB plays a role in crash and a major role in NVH so I do not think that it is
appropriate to suggest that the material replacement will have the reported results in this case. My suggestion is to leave
the CCB as steel in the weight analysis (or go back and redo the crash and NVH modeling, which I suspect is not viable).

[Richman]
   1)  LS-Dyna and  MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind of analysis.  FEM analysis is part science and
       part  art. EDAG has the experienced engineers and analysts required to generate valid simulation models and
       results.
   2)  EDAG was thorough in their analysis, load-case selections and data for evaluation
   3)  The handling of acceleration data from the crash test simulations is a bit unusual, and further analysis of the data
       is recommended.
                                                                                                                                           28
 image: 








                                 [OSU -Tony Luscher] Trifilar suspension apparatus was used to find the CG and moments of inertia of the engine and
                                 other major components. The dynamic FEA modal setup was run using NASTRAN. Vibration modes were analyzed by the
                                 CAE model and then compared with physical test data in order to correlate the FEA model to the physical model. Five
                                 different load case configurations with appropriate barriers were placed against the full vehicle baseline model. Models
                                 were created with high detail and fidelity.

                                 [Simunovic] The correlations and modifications of the baseline vehicle FEM model to the experimental results were
                                 primarily done on the measurements of vibrational and stiffness characteristics of the BIW. Once the stiffness of the BIW
                                 model was tuned to the experimental  results, it was considered to be sufficiently accurate to form the foundation for the
                                 crash model. The vehicle crash FEM model was then correlated to the NCAP and MDB side impact. The correlations were
                                 primarily based on the deformation modes and the FEM model was found to be satisfactory for the purposes of the FEV
                                 study.

                                 Comparison of the deformation in the NCAP crash in Figures 46-49 shows very good correlation of the deformation modes.
                                 The deformation of the subframe shown in the Figures 48-49 also shows very high fidelity of the simulated deformation
                                 compared to the experiment.

                                 In summary, the correlation of the baseline FEM model with the NCAP test is quite satisfactory. The correlation with the
                                 side MDB test was not elaborated in the report. However, the side impact is perhaps the most important and limiting
                                 design aspect for the lightweight vehicles. The side impact is almost exclusively a structural  problem that does  not
                                 compound the benefits of the reduced mass, as is the case of the frontal impact. A documented correlation of the baseline
                                 FEM model with the side impact experiment will in my opinion be a very beneficial technical addition to the FEV project
                                 that would significantly support the findings of the technical feasibility of the lightweight opportunities in the existing
                                 vehicle design space.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art crash
simulation testing methods have
been employed as well as the
extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
    1)  CAE modeling guidelines used appear to provide a rigorous and logical technical approach to the development of
       the FE and the methods of analysis.
    2)  Method of evaluating and comparing acceleration levels in the various crash test scenarios is a bit unusual, a more
       accepted method of comparing velocity/time plots and average accelerations is suggested.
[OSU -Tony Luscher] Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash  behaviors were analyzed and compared to the
deformation modes of test photographs. Fidelity was good. A few notes on these comparisons are noted on this page in
the additional comments section.
                                                                                                                                            29
 image: 








                                 [Simunovic] The FEV Low Development vehicle study has been reviewed following the instructions by the US EPA. It has
                                 been found that the FEV study followed most of the current technical guidelines and the state-of-the-art practices for
                                 computational crash simulation and design. Several inconsistencies were found in the developed FEM models that need to
                                 be addressed and corrected before the FEM models are released for the general use.
If you have access to FMVSS crash
setups to run the model under
different scenarios in LS-DYNA, are
you able to validate the FEV/EDAG
design and results? In addition,
please comment on the AVI files
provided.
[Joost] N/A

[OSU - Tony Luscher] This reviewer has expertise in crash simulation. However due to time constraints the model was not
run under different scenarios in LS-DYNA. No AVI files were found.
If you are aware of better methods
and tools employed and
documented elsewhere to help
validate advanced materials and
design engineering rigor for 2017-
2020 vehicles, please suggest how
they might be used to improve the
study.
[Joost] N/A

[Richman] Methods and tools were appropriate.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] "Bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance (when replacing with HSS)". This is an "of course"
comment, right?  HSS would absolutely produce worse results when replacing steel.  These results were expected, correct?

[OSU -Tony Luscher] The caption on Figures 1.8.13 to 1.8.14 state that they are at 100 ms although the previous paragraph lists them as occurring at 80 ms.
The muffler deformation looks quite different in Figure 1.8.14.

Figure 1.8.33 is unclear and cannot  be seen.
                                                                                                                                           30
 image: 








    4.  VEHICLE
       MANUFACTURING COST
       METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
       (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                                                  COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the mass-reduced
vehicle body structure's
manufacturing costs.
[Joost] Overall, the costing methods used in this study seem to be very thorough. The details of the approach provide
considerable credibility to the cost estimates, however there will always be concerns regarding the accuracy of cost models
for systems where a complete, detailed engineering design has not been established. I believe that this report does a good
job of representing the cost penalties/benefits of the technologies but I would still anticipate negative response from
industry. There a few examples where I believe that the cost was underestimated or where additional data could be helpful
in corroborating the results:

The engine cost comparison suggests that the 2.4L engine will cost less than the 2.7L engine due to reduced material
content (smaller engine). The analysis goes on to say that the remaining costs (manufacturing, install, etc.) would be about
the same for both engines. This seems credible, but is it possible to compare the price of both engine types as well? It may
be possible to find prices for both of these engines from a Toyota dealer, and while price is certainly different than cost, it
would be helpful in establishing that the cost differential estimate is reasonably accurate.

Regarding the cylinder head subsystem (pg 211), the report notes that a switch from Mg to plastic for the head covers
introduces engineering challenges related to the cam phaser circuitry. While the report identifies two production examples
of this change, these are for high cost engines. It seems unlikely that the designs would achieve the quoted cost savings
given that this  has only been applied to high cost engines and there are recognized difficulties in the engineering/design.

Regarding the body redesign, the  estimated cost increase due to materials and manufacturing ($231.43, pg 333) for a
weight savings of 67.7kg produces a weight reduction penalty of about $3.42/kg-saved which seems appropriate for the
materials and assembly processes suggested in the report.

I don't find the cost estimates for the seats to be credible (pg 378). If it's possible to reduce the weight of the seats (which
represent a significant portion of vehicle weight) while saving significant cost, why would there be any steel seats in
production? These  are "bolt on" parts that are provided to the OEMs by suppliers so this would be a relatively easy change
to make if the cost/weight trade-off shown in this report is true. The report should, at the very least, address why these
kinds of seats are not more prevalent in current vehicles.

Why is there a  cost savings for the front axle hub (pg 555)? If you are proposing to scallop the hub during forging then you
will still need the same amount of input material - some of it will be removed during scalloping, but you will not get a cost
                                                                                                                                              31
 image: 








savings. Also, it's not made explicitly clear that the current hub is forged. If you are proposing to move from a cast hub to a
forged hub then the cost will most certainly increase. If the cost savings here is due to the estimated weight savings in the
final part (i.e. pay for less material) then this indicates that the model is not correctly capturing the yield from the process.

[Richman] Body structure mass optimization was conducted by EDAG.  Body structure was not altered form the baseline
structure. Mass optimization process examined an appropriate range of material types, grades and gauges. Material
properties used appear valid for the respective materials and grades. NVH and collision performance results appear
consistent and logical with no significant dis-continuities of inconsistencies. In general the process used is excellent and
the results appear realistic and valid.
Costing models were maintained by EDAG. A complete baseline vehicle cost model was developed and calibrated to the
estimated cost of the current Venza.  The baseline model  was used to track  cost changes driven by mass reduction
technologies.
Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are based on detailed  analysis of the products, materials and  process
utilized.  Estimating  costs for new or emerging technologies is a challenging process. Advanced technology cost estimates
are based on  a  combination scaling from known products  if available,  benchmarking from similar products, material
supplier costs, analysis of advanced manufacturing cost, and expert estimates. Labor rates and manufacturing overheads
are maintained at documented industry typical levels.
This cost tracking approach is fundamentally sound and valid.  Cost estimates for new technologies are subject to validity
of cost estimates and engineering judgments in the estimate.  This project included rigorous engineering assessments of all
mass reduction technology costs.
For most mass reduction technologies selected, cost estimates appear realistic and are consistent with current production
costs and prior vehicle mass reduction studies. In the area of body sheet materials there appears to be some assumptions
that result in estimated technology costs as much as 25% higher than volume production experience would suggest.  This
are is discussed in more detail in this report.
        Costs attributed to optimization of the body are reported as:
                                           Mass Reduction
                                     Cost     $/Kg saved
               BIW                  $110     $ 2.19       HSS, AHHS
               Hood                 $  39     $ 5.08       Aluminum
               Lift Gate              $  30     $ 4.16       Aluminum
               Fenders               $  22      $10.93       Aluminum

                                                                                                             32
 image: 








                                                         Total
                                    $210   $ 3.20
                                 Cost increases projected for HSS and AHSS are marginally higher than have been reported in analytical studies and OEM
                                 experience in volume production. Production vehicle studies of AHSS in auto body applications have suggested cost impact
                                 of reduced body mass can offset a majority of the cost premiums associated with these materials.
                                 Cost increases projected for aluminum sheet application are significantly higher than has been seen in prior studies and in
                                 production OEM experience.  The optimized body includes three aluminum components: Hood, Fenders and Lift Gate.
                                 Mass reductions attributed to these three product areas are consistent with OEM production experience. Estimated cost
                                 increases are significantly higher than have been seen in production experience.
                                 Using the hood as an example, total cost of the baseline hood is estimated to be $43 while total cost of the aluminum hood
                                 is estimated to be $93. Mass savings with the aluminum hood is 7.7 Kg resulting in a net cost per Kg mass reduction of
                                 $6.49.  Production program  experience with aluminum hoods typical find a cost premium below $4.50 per Kg mass
                                 reduction. Processing costs for  a steel or aluminum hood should be similar.  That similarity is reflected the EDAG cost
                                 model. The main cost difference between hoods is in material cost.  Examining the EDAG cost model it appears aluminum
                                 sheet products were assessed a base metal cost and a grade premium. The two factors appear to be combined in the cost
                                 model results a raw material cost substantially higher than actual market price for these materials.
                                 EDAG cost models for auto body sheet materials (AHSS and aluminum) appear to be overstating raw material costs. A
                                 review of the costing models and correlation with market prices for the materials and how raw material cost for sheet
                                 products is established in the models may be appropriate.
                                 [OSU -Tony Luscher] Mass reduction was analyzed first on a system level and then by a component level basis. Mass
                                 reduction concepts were based upon a very comprehensive literature review of new materials and manufacturing
                                 processes and alternative designs ideas that appear in the open literature and at trade shows. An assessment of these was
                                 made in terms of technological readiness, fitness for use in mass production, risk, and cost. In addition there were
                                 consultation with industry and experts.

                                 [Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art costing
methods have been employed as
well as the extent to which the
associated analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]  Costing models are thorough covering all elements of total production cost (material, processing, equipment,
tooling, freight, packaging,...). Baseline cost model was calibrated to baseline vehicle cost projection. The basic model is
complete and sound.
Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are the result of a rigorous engineering process utilizing benchmarking
data, material and component costs from suppliers and detailed analysis of manufacturing costs. Sound creative
engineering analysis was used to scale product cost to this specific vehicle application. Accuracy of new technology cost
                                                                                                                                            33
 image: 








                                 estimates is dependent on the knowledge, skill, experience and engineering judgment of the individuals making the
                                 estimates. Munro Associates conducted this segment of the project.  Munro is a highly respected organization with strong
                                 qualifications in product cost analysis.  It is reasonable to assume cost estimates in this study are valid estimates for the
                                 mass reduction technologies.
                                 One area of cost estimate concern is reduced mass sheet products. In this area, material and equipment costs attributed
                                 to the reduced mass technologies are significantly higher than actual  production experience would support. Source of the
                                 discrepancy is not clear form the information in the project review documents.
                                 [OSU - Tony Luscher] The impact of costs, associated with mass reduction, was evaluated using FEV's methodology and
                                 tools as previously employed on prior powertrain analyses for EPA. Cost reduction assumptions are clearly laid out and are
                                 reasonable. The report does a good job of realizing the inherent challenges and risks in applying any new technology, let
                                 alone lightweight technology, to a vehicle platform.  FEV describes the component interactions both positive and negative
                                 in its recommendations.

                                 The actual values in the EXCEL files were not checked.

                                 [Simunovic] This is  not my area of expertise.
If you are aware of better methods
and tools employed and
documented elsewhere to help
estimate costs for advanced
vehicle materials and design for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman] Process methodology and execution used is one of the best this reviewer has seen.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.

[Simunovic]  This is not my area of expertise.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] The change from a cast Al engine block with cast Fe liners to a cast-over Mg/AI hybrid with PWTA coated cylinders is very interesting, but the cost
penalty estimate seems low relative to what I would expect. Previous work exploring the use of Mg intensive engines (which did not include the added
complexity of cast-in Al liners) suggests a cost penalty of $3.89 per pound saved (see
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm 08/3 automotive  metals-cast.pdf report B) versus this report which suggests a cost penalty of $3.51
per kilogram saved, about half as expensive. The cited study was performed on a 2.5 L engine, comparable to the Venza. The primary difference is that the
Venza study includes downsizing which would save on material costs, but I'm not confident that the savings would be as substantial as indicated in this report. It
seems that something has been underestimated.
                                                                                                                                            34
 image: 








There are several examples where a cost savings has been calculated by reducing the size of a component, despite using more expensive material. For example
the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem shows a savings for the caliper subsystem and a modest increase in the cost of the rotor and shield. Some of the
cost savings here is due to reducing the size of the system (scaling to the 2008 Toyota Prius). However, there would still be a weight savings (albeit lower) if the
conventional cast iron materials were used and downsized to the 2008 Toyota Prius - this is the likely outcome in a real automotive environment. Given the
option to choose a more expensive, exotic, untested system that saves significant weight versus a conventional low cost system that saves less weight, it seems
like an OEM would choose the conventional solution. In this case the suggested weight savings are technically possible but would never happen in a practical
automotive environment.

[Richman]  A review of cost development for reduced  mass sheet product should be reviewed.  Current model would lead to de-selecting some low mass
sheet based solutions due to unrepresentative cost assessment.

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] Table 1.7.1: NVH Results Summary. The "Weight Test Condition" and "Weight BIW" are ALSO outside of limits (> 5%), but not noted
in results.  Only those highlighted in red are noted as "failures". All  failures (> 5%) should be called out specifically since that was their target.

[OSU -Tony Luscher] There are many typos and fragmented sentences in these sections. These should be corrected. Bookmark references do not all work.
                                                                                                                                           35
 image: 








    5.  CONCLUSION AND
       FINDINGS
                                                 COMMENTS
Are the study's conclusions
adequately backed up by the
methods and analytical rigor of the
study?
[Joost] Yes. I identified various areas where the analysis or report could be improved, but overall the methods used here
provide a credible and reasonable estimate of the potential for weight savings. Based on some of my earlier comments I
would expect that actual costs to be somewhat higher than predicted in this study. Additionally, real vehicles share
components across platforms so using vehicle-specific components would add additional cost. It is possible that the cost
curve would cross $0/lb-saved at a lower total weight savings than suggested  here.

[Richman]  Study conclusions and findings are well supported by the analytical rigor, tools used and expertise of the
organizations involved.
EDAG conducted  a detailed  reverse engineering process  to define  baseline Venza  component mass and structural
performance.  The process included: vehicle teardown, identification of component mass and material composition and
component scanning to  create digital models of structural  components.  Part connections  (spot weld, seam weld,  laser
weld), dimensions (location, weld diameter, weld  length), and characteristics were documented during scanning process.
Material property data was obtained by coupon testing part samples.
Scan data,  part weight and material information were  used  to create a CAE model of the vehicle structure.  A finite
element (FE) model was created from the CAE model using ANSA mesh software. The FE model was used to evaluate NVH
characteristics  (bending, torsion,  modal analysis)  of the structure  using NASTRAN.  Model results were compared and
calibrated with analytical test results to establish the baseline analysis model. CAE crash performance simulations (LS-
DYNA) were conducted to verify model correlation with actual vehicle crash test performance in  National Highway Traffic
Safety  Association (NHTSA)  regulatory performance testing.   Model results were  calibrated to  actual Venza crash
performance data. The correlated crash model became the baseline crash model for the remaining load  cases.
EDAG is  widely recognized as highly competent and experienced in vehicle structural  modeling,  NVH  and collision
simulation  and structural engineering.  LS-Dyna, MSC/Nastran and ANSA  are valid and widely-used simulation tools,
commonly  used and accepted within the engineering community and the industry  to perform this analysis. The approach
used by EDAG to develop Venza structural models is a state-of-the art methodology utilizing proven modeling tools.
Structural models  developed in this project were calibrated to physical test results of actual vehicle structures.  Simulation
results appear  reasonable and logical, building confidence in the fidelity of the analysis. Models have excellent correlation
to actual  vehicle performance.  FMVSS crash results are consistent with bending and torsional stiffness properties. There
is no apparent reason to question results of this modeling and simulation effort.  These models would  be expected to  be
valid for comparison of design alternatives.  These models would be expected to provide reliable assessments of NVH and
collision performance of the Venza structure.
                                                                                                                                             36
 image: 








                                 Report conclusions with regard to NVH and collision performance do not substantially overreach the capability and results
                                 of the analysis.  In some relatively minor areas, assessment to of the "optimized" structure is not fully supported by
                                 generally recognized measures of structural performance.  These few relatively uncertainties do not diminish the overall
                                 conclusion that the modeling and simulation efforts are well done and the major conclusions are valid useable.
                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] At the time of review, Section G "Conclusions and Recommendations" is unavailable. We hope that
                                 in this section FEV will point out the most promising actions that auto makers may take to reduce mass while conserving
                                 cost.

                                 [OSU -Tony Luscher] The report's conclusions are based on sound engineering principals of good rigor.
Are the conclusions about the
design, development, validation,
and cost of the mass-reduced
design valid?
[Joost] Yes. As above, there is reason to believe that the true cost will be higher than predicted here, but I think this
analysis provides a useful estimate.

[Richman]  Design development and validation conclusions are well supported in this study. Cost model is valid and cost
conclusions are generally realistic. There appears to be a systematic discrepancy in cost modeling of low mass sheet
products. This discrepancy has a minor impact on conclusions of this study.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] This study is carefully crafted with excellent attention to engineering detail.  It is important to note
that the overall environment for vehicle design, manufacture and use is continually changing. See the "Additional
Comments" section of this document for further development of the implications of this.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] This reviewer found the overall work to be thorough and well documented. Therefore the
conclusions are well supported and validated by the engineering and modeling in the report.
Are you aware of other available
research that better evaluates and
validates the technical potential
for mass-reduced vehicles in the
2017-2020 timeframe?
[Joost] I have not seen a report as thorough as this. There are several examples of resources that provide useful
information regarding weight reduction potential such as
Cheah, L.W. Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.
Joshi, A.M. Optimizing Battery Sizing and Vehicle Lightweighting for an Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Lutsey, N.  Review of technical literature and trends related to automobile mass-reduction technology

[Richman] This reviewer has monitored automotive mass reduction studies in North America and Europe for several
years. This study is the best evaluation of mass reduction opportunities and associated costs this reviewer has seen.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] There are no more comprehensive or detailed studies that we are aware of. This is an excellent
compilation of ideas for practical vehicle mass reduction and fuel efficiency improvement.
                                                                                                                                             37
 image: 








                                 [OSU - Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The study does an excellent job within its scope. As this reviewer sees the scope, the driving question is: Can a well-engineered relatively
modern vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza) have its mass reduced by 20% or more, without significant cost penalty and while maintaining crashworthiness.  The
answer to that question is a clear "YES".  Further, this conclusion is backed with rigor and attention to detail. This is in my mind, very clear, well-done and
technically rigorous.

This reviewer believes that there are a few other important questions that were not asked. These include:

1) Will the proposed changes in design pose any other important risks in manufacture or use? This can include: warranty exposure, durability, increased noise,
vibration and harshness, maintenance concerns, etc., etc.

2) Will increasing regulatory constraints and/or consumer expectations require increases in vehicle mass, opposing the mass reductions provided by the
improved practices outlined in this study?

Both these issues will make vehicle light weighting more difficult than this report suggests. With respect to issue 1) there are a number of materials and design
substitutions that may produce concerns with durability, manufacturability and warranty claims. For example when substituting polymers for metals, there are
new environmental embrittlement modes that may cause failure and warranty claims. Also, if substituting aluminum for steel, multi-material connections may
cause galvanic corrosion problems. When using thinner sheets of higher strength steel, formability may be reduced and springback may be more problematic.
Both these issues may preclude the use of the stronger  material with a similar design and may also increase the time and cost involved with die development.
Lastly there are always risks in  any new design.  For example, when using new brake designs, pad wear and squeal may be more pronounced. All of these issues
may cause a manufacturer to avoid the new technology.
There are also local constrains on material thicknesses that are outside this review methodology. For example while a roof rail may meet crash and stiffness
criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanen
thickness gauges than this study may indicate.
criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanently if a 99th percentile male pulls on it exiting a vehicle.  Similarly, parking lot and hail dents may require greater
The problem of vehicle light-weighting and improved fuel economy is seen here through the lens as being an engineering problem to be solved. And in many
ways it is.  However, the forces of consumer expectations and behaviors are an essential part of the problem. As an interesting anecdote, the Model T Ford had
a fuel economy of about 20 MPG, very similar to the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road today. No modern consumer would choose a Model T for
many obvious reasons. Our cars have become extensions of our living rooms with many electrical motors driving windows, mirrors, seats and complex and
costly HVAC and infotainment systems. All of these systems add weight, complexity and use power.  Further increased complexity of engines to improve
emissions and increase fuel economy has increased engine mass.

                                                                                                                                            38
 image: 








This study shows that with good engineering we can reduce vehicle mass of an existing vehicle by 20% with little to no increased cost or adverse consumer
reaction. Based on our current course, it is just as likely this benefit will be taken by improved mandated safety and emission features as well as improved
creature comforts.

Much can be gained through enlightened consumer behavior (assuming the average consumer wants to reduce energy use and carbon footprint). While much
of this is outside the scope of this report, in particular it would be useful if the average consumer would understand the lifecycle environmental impacts of
vehicle choice and of varied  vehicle design, and would adopt a 'less is more' ethic and see their transportation systems as that, simply transportation. A more
minimalist ethic that would move against increasing vehicle size and the creep of multiple motors for seats, mirrors, windows, etc., would reduce acquisition
cost, maintenance cost and energy cost. This is in addition, of course, to the usual advice to reduce fuel consumption (limit trips, limit speed, tire pressure,
carpooling, etc. etc.) is still valuable.

It should also be noted that there are other potentially low-cost actions that can be easily adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence
on foreign oil.  One of these  is widespread adoption of natural gas fuels for personal transportation. Use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), has lower fuel cost
than gasoline, produces less pollution and greenhouse gas emission per energy used, and requires only very modest changes to conventional vehicle
architecture, with no significant increases in complexity. The cost and size of a CNG tank and the development of refueling infrastructure are the main barriers
to adoption of a technology  that could have important and positive societal benefits.

This is an excellent and useful study. It is important however to recognize the limitations of purely engineering solutions. And even within the engineering
realm, there are many reasons that the implementation of the solutions in this paper study will require much effort to become part of mainstream
automobiles.

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] With respect to measuring powertrain CG and moment of inertia, notes "oscillation as an undamped" condition. Just confirming,
this means no dynamic dampers were  used in the engine room modeling? Is this realistic? Acceptable practice?
                                                                                                                                             39
 image: 








    6.  OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS
       FOR COMMENT
                                                  COMMENTS
Has the study made substantial
improvements over previous
available works in the ability to
understand the feasibility of 2017-
2020 mass-reduction technology
for light-duty vehicles?  If so,
please describe.
[Joost] Yes. Other studies have reviewed the mass saving potential of various technologies individually, or imagined the
impact of combining many technologies. However I am not aware of a design study that takes an existing vehicle and
assesses each piece with the thoroughness used here.

[Richman]  Yes. Overall objectives) of the project (20% mass reduction, less than 10% cost increase) are timely and
consistent with industry interests in the short term.

Retaining the OEM designed and field proven body structure eliminates uncertainty related to evaluation of novel and un-
proven structures. This analysis clearly identifies body mass reduction achievable with new and near term  future grades of
HSSand AHSS.

An exhaustive list of non-body mass reduction concepts are evaluated in this study. Some of these technologies are well
known and understood in the industry, other are new, creative and innovative.  Each technology is reviewed from an
engineering and cost perspective and scaled to the specific application.  The technology selection process was analytical,
rigorous and un-biased.  Majority of technologies selected are appropriate for the mass reduction and cost objectives of
the project. This information provides helpful information to industry engineers considering mass reduction alternatives
for other vehicle programs.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn]  Without question. The only similar study also targeted the Venza. This provides much additional
analysis and many additional ideas beyond the Lotus study.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn]  The major contribution of this study was to pull together and evaluate all of the current proven
concepts that are applicable to a lightweight vehicle in the 2017-2020 timeframe. It is successful in this regard.
Do the study design concepts have
critical deficiencies in its
applicability for 2017-2020 mass-
reduction feasibility for which
revisions should be made before
the report is finalized?  If so,
please describe.
[Joost] No - I would not say that any deficiencies here are "critical".

[Richman] Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by 2017-20.
Two technologies selected for inclusion in the final vehicle concept appear "speculative" for 2017-20, Co-cast
magnesium/aluminum block and MMC brake rotors. Both technologies are identified as "D" level for implementation.
Designing, developing and establishing production capacity for a new engine block is a time consuming and costly process.
Investments would be required by OEM manufactures and casting suppliers. It is not clear the level of human resources
                                                                                                                                             40
 image: 








                                 and capital investment required for this technology could be justified the basis of the mass reduction potential of (7 Kg).
                                 Aluminum MMC brake rotors were selected for inclusion in the final vehicle configuration. In the judgment of this
                                 reviewer, this technology is the most speculative technology selected for the final vehicle configuration. MMC rotors have
                                 been in development for over 25 years. Development experience with these rotors has generally not been acceptable for
                                 typical customer service. The minimum mass MMC rotor design selected in this project is a radical (by automotive
                                 standards) multi piece bolted composite design with an MMC rotor disc. This design is identified as a "D" rated technology
                                 and a mass savings of 9 Kg. The aluminum MMC portion of the mas reduced rotor assembly would be regarded as
                                 "speculative" at this time.
                                 Cost models  used to  assess low mass sheet product may have some questionable assumptions.  For this project,
                                 adjustment in the cost  model is unlikely to influence he material selection process. Correction in this area would have a
                                 greater impact  on technology screening and selection to achieve mass reductions above 20%.
                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] Conclusions and recommendations section  is missing. This is an important opportunity to reinforce
                                 the most important actions that automakers can take.

                                 The report still  lacks the ability to trace some technical details all the way back to the source. This is described previously.
Are there fundamentally different
lightweight vehicle design
technologies that you expect to be
much more common (either in
addition to or instead of) than the
one Lotus has assessed for the
2017-2020 timeframe (Low
Development)?
[Joost] Not in the 2017-2020 time frame. Switching to an advanced steel dominant body with a few instances of Mg and Al
seems appropriate for the time frame. The considerable use of lightweight plastics is also in line with my expectations for
available technology in this time frame.

[Richman] No. The result of his study is a logical and cost effective advancement in the development of more efficient
passenger vehicles for the 2017-20 time frame.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] It seems apparent that vehicles are moving more and more to multi-materials construction and as
we move away from steel-based construction, joined primarily by resistance spot welds, there will be need for additional
joining technologies.  Laser welding is mentioned as one possible replacement for resistance spot welds, but it is expected
that  over time there will be much  more use of structural adhesives, self piercing rivets, conformal joints and other joining
strategies for the BIW.
Are there any other areas outside
of the direct scope of the analysis
(e.g., vehicle performance,
durability, drive ability, noise,
vibration, and hardness) for which
the mass-reduced vehicle design is
likely to exhibit any compromise
[Joost] All of the areas listed here are somewhat concerning, but given the switch to fairly conventional materials I believe
that durability, driveability, and NVH should be not be a significant issue. Detailed analysis work in these areas would likely
require some redesign which may add cost or weight, but I don't think it would be overwhelming.

[Richman]  None identified by this reviewer.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Yes. There are many other details with respect to nuances of customer expectations, durability,

                                                                                                            41
 image: 








from the baseline vehicle?
warranty risks and manufacturability that are discussed elsewhere in this review. This does not diminish the importance of
this great work. Just points out there are an enormous amount of detailed work required to build an automobile, and the
job is not finished.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] Overall, well-written and well-done...my conclusion (which they also reached) is YES, NVH WILL SUFFER when replacing steel with
HSS and will OF COURSE make the vehicle MORE STIFF.

[Simunovic] The FEV report is quite exhaustive. I would suggest that it be released in a hypertext format that can allow different navigation paths through it.
Also, the dynamic Web-based technologies can be used for effective model documentation, presentation and distribution. I would also recommend that more
details on the actual optimization process, including the objective function specification, and the final consolidation of the model, be added to the
documentation.
                                                                                                                                            42
 image: 








4.  References




FEV. Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle.  2012.
                                                                                           43
 image: 








                            Appendix A: Resumes of Peer Reviewers


                                          William Joost
3300 East West Hwy Apt 534                william.joost@gmail.com                    Mobile: (202) 674-8900
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Education:
    Working toward Ph.D. Materials Science and Engineering                               Est. May 2014
    University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
    M.S. Materials Science and Engineering                                                     May 2009
    Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
    B.S. Materials Engineering                                                                  May 2005
    Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), Troy, NY.

Employment Experience:
       General Engineer                                                                  Jan. 2010-Present
       U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
         -  Serves  as  the Technology Area  Development  Manager for the  Lightweight Materials portfolio  in the
           Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP).  Supports research  on  improving  properties, manufacturability &
           joining, and modeling &  simulation of advanced steels, aluminum alloys,  and magnesium  alloys  for
           automotive applications.
         -  Directs a budget of ~$10M per year supporting research in structural metals for conventional and electric
           drive vehicles. Manages projects that involve teams from  diverse  disciplines  including materials science,
           mechanical engineering, computer science, and physics. Supports interaction between participants from
           industry, national laboratories, and academia.
         -  Develops solicitation  topics, coordinates proposal reviews, and manages project performance. Participates
           in the formulation, justification, tracking,  and execution of the Lightweight Materials budget.  Manages
           publication  of Annual Report for the Lightweight Materials sub-program. Coordinates activities in  metals
           with the Office of Advanced Manufacturing, U.S Department of  Energy.
         -  Led the light-duty vehicles portion of the 2011 VTP Advanced Materials Workshop. Used the industry-
           supported  results to  develop new program goals, establish weight reduction targets for vehicle systems,
           and draft road mapping priorities.

       Manufacturing  Engineer/Equipment Engineering Supervisor                           Apr. 2008-Dec. 2009
       Heraeus Materials Technology LLC, Chandler, AZ
         -  Managed the Equipment  Engineering  Team, responsible for  maintaining functionality, capability,  and
           uptime of ~180 pieces of capital equipment including high power, high vacuum, and precision machining
           tools.
         - Created a high yielding process technique  for Pt-containing alloys, saving  more than $500,000 per year in
           refining costs
         - Developed vacuum induction melting (VIM) and hot rolling  processing techniques for specialty Co, Ni, and
           Fe based alloys and intermetallic materials
         - Introduced a scrap metal recycling process for machining chips of Co and Pt based alloys, reducing scrap
           costs by more than $40,000 per month

       Process Engineer/Manufacturing Engineering Production Supervisor                   Oct. 2005-Apr. 2008
       Heraeus Materials Technology LLC, Chandler, AZ
         -  Managed a  16-person rolling team across four shifts
         -  Developed  a stress/strain  model of the  hot rolling process  which included equipment  behavior  and
           material characteristics
         - Modeled material properties as a function of alloy and ingot dimensions to automate roll schedule creation
         - Applied Design of Experiments methodology in  melting and hot rolling  processes to identify significant
           process factors and improve yields on high value sputtering targets


                                                                                                       44
 image: 








Research Experience:
       Graduate Researcher in Ph.D. program, Materials Science and Engineering              Aug. 2010 - Present
       University of Maryland, College Park, MD
         - Exploring  the microstructural-scale deformation behavior of Ti alloys  using  computational materials
           science techniques
         - Developing finite element models (ANSYS) of Ti microstructures and determining the impact of grain
           interaction stresses on the deformation mechanisms during creep

       Graduate Researcher in M.S. program, Materials Science and Engineering               Jan. 2007-May 2009
       Arizona State University,  Tempe, AZ
         - Determined  sputtering recipes  for optimal deposition of textured  Ru films in  perpendicular magnetic
           recording media
         - Characterized the effects of CoCrX alloy seed layers for Ru in  perpendicular magnetic recording media by
           X-ray diffraction,  Rutherford   backscattering,  atomic  force microscopy,  and  transmission  electron
           microscopy
         - Demonstrated improved  coherency at the interface of Ru  films deposited on CoCrV seed  layers by
           calculation of Ru film strain energy

Publications and Presentations
       1) Joost, W., Das, A., Alford, T.L. "Effects of varying CoCrV seed  layer deposition pressure on Ru crystallinity
       in perpendicular magnetic recording media" Journal of Applied Physics, 106, 073517 (2009).

       2)  Joost, W.  "Lightweight  Materials for  Vehicles:   Needs, Goals,  and  Future  Technologies."  Invited
       presentation at the 47th  Sagamore Army Materials Research Conference on Advanced Lightweight  Metals
       Technology, St. Michaels, MD,  06/17/2010.

       3) Joost, W. "Lightweight Materials for Vehicles: Needs, Goals,  and  Future  Technologies." Invited keynote
       presentation  at the 3rd  Annual Advanced  Lightweight  Materials for Vehicles conference,  Detroit, MI,
       8/11/2010.

       4) Joost, W. "Materials  Development for Vehicle Weight Reduction and the  Impacts on Energy Efficiency."
       Invited  keynote  presentation  at the Materials Science and Technology (MS&T) 2011 conference, Columbus,
       OH, 10/18/2011.
                                                                                                         45
 image: 








                                  GLENN S. DAEHN

                  Department of Materials Science and Engineering
                             The Ohio State University
                     2041 College Road, Columbus, OH 43210
           P: 614/292-6779, E: Daehn.1@osu.edu. W: osu.edu/mse/~daehn

 EDUCATION:
             STANFORD UNIVERSITY                                 Palo Alto, CA
             Ph.D., Materials Science & Engineering, 1988.

             STANFORD UNIVERSITY                                 Palo Alto, CA
             M.S., Materials Science & Engineering, 1985.

             NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY                          Evanston, Illinois
             B.S. (departmental honors), Materials Science & Engineering, 1983.
             Received Gotaas Award for outstanding undergraduate research.

EXPERIENCE:
11/87-pres    Professor (1996-pres), Assoc, Asst. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Columbus, OH
             Teaching and research focus on mechanical behavior and processing of
             structural materials. High velocity sheet metal forming and mechanical behavior
             of composites are focus areas.

7/04-10/07    V. P. Technology  EXCERA MATERIALS GROUP         Worthington, OH
Co-founder (1993) developer/manufacturer ceramic composites by reactive processing.
             Sabbatical in 04-05 academic year. OSU-based, technology now
             commercialized by Fireline, Inc. & Rex Materials Group.

1/97-7/97     Visiting Scientist,  ROCKWELL SCIENCE CENTER,      Thousand Oaks, CA
             Sabbatical period; engaged in manufacturing and materials performance issues.

9/83-11/87    Research Assistant,  STANFORD UNIVERSITY,              Palo Alto, CA
             Dissertation under Oleg D. Sherby: laminated composites of superplastic
             ultrahigh carbon steel and stainless steel.

SELECT PROFESSIONAL AWARDS & ACTIVITIES:
2010 - pres   Executive Director; Honda-Ohio State Partnership

2010         Named Fellow ASM International

2010 -        Member, Board of Trustees,  ASM Materials Education Foundation.

2010-        Chair,  International Impulse Forming Group

2009 - pres   Director,  Ohio Manufacturing Institute - New organization focused on linking
             industry and Ohio's research assets

2009         Innovators Award of Ohio State College of Engineering

2008-        Founding Vice-Chair,  International Impulse Forming Group

2007         ASM Jacquet-Lucas Award for Excellence in Metallography.
                                                                                46
 image: 








2002-3       Served on National Research Council Committee on "Use of Lightweight
             Materials in 21st Century Army Trucks"

1996         One of 13 invited speakers at second National Academy of Engineering Frontiers
             of Engineering Meeting

1995-1997    Chair, IMS Shaping and Forming Committee

1995         Named Mars G.  Fontana Professor of Metallurgical Engineering.

1992         National Young Investigator of National Science Foundation.

1992         Army Research Office Young Investigator Award.

1992&'00, 04 Lumley Research Award of Ohio State University College of Engineering.

1992         Robert Lansing Hardy Gold Medal of IMS, recognizing outstanding promise in
             the  broad field of metallurgy.

1990         ASM Marcus A. Grossmann Young Author Award, for "Deformation of Whisker-
             Reinforced MMC's Under Changing Temperature Conditions".
SELECTED RECENT PUBLICATIONS
"Creep Behavior and Deformation Mechanisms for Nanocluster-Strengthened Ferritic Steels",
M. C. Brandes, L. Kovarik, M. Miller, G. S. Daehn and M. J. Mills, in press: Acta Materialia
(2011).

"Predictive Mechanism for Anisotropy Development in the Earth's Inner Core", D. M. Reaman,
G. S. Daehn and W. R. Panero, accepted in Earth Planetary Science Letters (2011).

"Dislocation Mediated Time-Dependent Deformation in Crystalline Solids", M. J. Mills and G. S.
Daehn, Chapter in: Computational Methods for Microstructure-Property Relationships, S. Ghosh
and D.  M. Dimiduk, editors, Springer Science, 311-363 (2011).

"Energy Field Methods and Electromagnetic Metal Forming", G. S.  Daehn, Chapter 18 in:
Intelligent Energy Field Methods and Interdisciplinary Process Innovations, Wenwu Zhang,
Editor,  CRC Press, 2011, pp. 471-504.

"Production of Low-Volume Aviation Components Using Disposable Electromagnetic Actuators"
Steven Woodward, Christian Weddeling, Glenn Daehn, Verena Psyk, Bill Carson, A. Erman
Tekkaya, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 211, Iss. 5, pp. 886-895, (2011).

"Electromagnetic Impulse Calibration of High Strength Sheet Metal Structures",  E. Iriondo, M. A.
Gutierrez, B. Gonzalez, J. L. Alcaraz and G. S. Daehn, Journal of Materials Processing
Technology, 211, Iss.  5, pp. 909-915, (2011).

"Simulation and Instrumentation of Electromagnetic Compression of Steel Tubes", A. Vivek, K-H
Kim, and G. S.  Daehn, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 211, Iss. 5, pp. 840-850,
(2011).


Selected Patents and Applications
"Low Temperature Spot Impact Welding Driven Without Contact", Glenn D. Daehn and John C.
Lippold. US Patent 8084710, Issued December 27, 2011.

"Electromagnetic Actuator for Multiple Operations", Glenn S. Daehn, PCT Applicaton:
PCT/US08/61066, Filed 4/19/08.

"Driver Plate for Electromagnetic Forming of Sheet Metal", John R. Bradley and Glenn S.
Daehn, US Patent Application 2009/0090162, Published 4/9/09.
                                                                                  47
 image: 








"Electromagnetic Metal Forming" (Uniform Pressure Actuator), G. S. Daehn, U. S. Patent,
2,069,756, Issued 7/4/06.

"Electromagetic Formation of Fuel Cell Plates" John, R. Bradley, James G. Schroth and Glenn
S. Daehn, U.S. Patent 7,076.981, Issued 7/18/2006.

 "High Velocity Forming of Local Features Using a Projectile", G. S. Daehn,  U. S. Patent
7,000,300, Issued 2/21/06.

"5000 series alloys with improved corrosion properties and methods for their manufacture and
use", M. C. Carroll, M. J. Mills, R. G. Buchheit, G. S.  Daehn,  B. Morere, P. Kobe, and H. S.
Goodrich, US Patent Application  10/628579, published 5/13/04.


Courses Developed and Recently Taught:
Developed: Engineering 198a / "Engineering, Manufacturing and the Creation of Wealth"

Developed: MSE 605: Quantitative Introduction to Materials  Science and Engineering
MSE 581.02: Materials Science Lab II (Junior Level)

MSE 765: Mechanical Behavior of Materials

MSE 863: Time Dependent Deformation of Solids

MSE 561 Mechanical Behavior of Materials
                                                                                   48
 image: 








                                       Kristina Kennedy
                  7263 Fitzwilliam Drive 0 Dublin, Ohio 43017 0 614-395-3568 0 kennedy.443@osu.edu
EDUCATION
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
Master of Business Administration

UNIVERSITY OF IOWA
Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering
Columbus, OH
   August 2008

 Iowa City, IA
December 2000
EXPERIENCE
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY                                           Columbus, OH
Business Development Manager, Ohio Manufacturing Institute         Aug. 2010 - Present
•    Coordinate collaborative R&D opportunities, including tracking possible opportunities,
     assembling multi-disciplinary teams, and assisting with proposal development in order to
     develop and improve the operation, visibility and effectiveness of OMI
•    Successfully secured $100K+ seed funding and developed related procedures and
     documentation in order to launch Co-Located Internship Program in March 2011 to deploy
     OSU students to industry partners as technology transfer mechanisms within commercially-
     expected time-scales.
•    Efficiently manage inquiries of potential customers of research and development services;
     develop and sustain customer satisfaction through new survey mechanism

GREIF                                                                  Delaware, OH
Regional Marketing Manager (Midwest)                            Nov. 2008 - Oct. 2009
•    Effectively managed cross functional engineering / marketing new product development team
     to ensure timely and effective roll out of earth-friendly green consumer product line.
•    Key member of competitive intelligence team for green product line in charge of seeking out
     competitor product offerings, customer base, sales strategy and sales channels in order to
     gain valuable competitive knowledge, create value added reports of findings, and make sales /
     strategy recommendations to upper management.
•    Oversaw and implemented effective go-to-market pricing strategies for all product lines based
     on deep analysis of current market indices, close analysis of raw material prices, and
     segmentation of targeted customer base.

THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY                                           Columbus, OH
Assistant Director - Outreach                                     Jan. 2006 - Oct. 2008
•    Developed, managed and successfully executed all aspects of engineering outreach
     programming for the College of Engineering in order to foster educational outreach initiatives
     and expand the recruitment candidate pool.
•    In conjunction with Math and Science Departments, developed targeted retention strategy
     involving special activities, student involvement workshops, and free tutoring sessions which
     resulted in -15% increase in retention of undergraduate students.
•    Fostered relationships with corporate sponsors and community partners in order to cultivate
     funding for STEM outreach and education initiatives.

HONDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT                                   Raymond, OH
Quality Engineer III                                               Jan. 2001 - Jan. 2006
•    Co-leader of special project team which successfully and efficiently developed and rolled out
     company-wide Access database making competitive information, quality information, and
     warranty data easily and quickly accessible to over 1100 Honda associates.
•    Managed cross functional joint design and test teams in order to identify vehicle problem
     items and develop cost effective,  timely countermeasures for implementation.
                                                                                                          49
 image: 








                            Project Manager of special market investigation teams that saved the company over $750K in
                            future warranty costs based on successful implementation of design changes on models
                            including Acura TL and Honda Pilot.
LEADERSHIP            Society of Women Engineers, Central Ohio Section
                        •   Outreach & Education Chair                                     Jun. 2010-Present
                        •   President                                                   Jun. 2008 - Jun. 2010
                        •   Marketing / Communications Chair                              Jun. 2007 - Jun. 2008
                        •   Member                                                     Sept. 1996-Present

                        Society of Manufacturing Engineers
                        •   Executive Board Member                                   December 2011 - Present
                        •   Member                                                     Sept. 2010-Present

                        Women in Engineering Advocacy Network (WEPAN)
                        •   Communications Committee Co-Chair                            Jun. 2007 - Jun. 2008
                        •   Distinguished Service Award (Communications Committee)                    Jun. 2008

                        Engineering Education Insights Magazine
                        •   Featured Monthly Columnist                                    Aug. 2007 - Jun. 2008

                        Toastmasters,  Honda R&D Section
                        •   Vice President                                               Jan. 2005 - Dec. 2005
                                                                                                       50
 image: 








                                DOUGLAS A. RICHMAN
1660 Loch ridge                                                 Business: 248.352.4630X220
Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48302                           E-mail: doug.richman@ep.kaiseral.com


KAISER ALUMINUM FABRICATED PRODUCTS, LLC                           2002 - PRESENT
   VP - Engineering and Technology
   Lead engineering group providing engineering support to customers and Kaiser plants serving
   technically demanding automotive and industrial markets. Assist customer engineering organizations
   with  product design guidance, metallurgical engineering and design for manufacturing. Support
   customer design and development of innovative aluminum products to satisfy new end product
   requirements. Advanced process strategic planning supporting future product requirements.

   Aluminum Association
   Kaiser technical representative to the Aluminum Association and ASTM.
   Aluminum Association -   Member - Aluminum Transportation Group (ATG)
                           Board of Directors - ATG
                           Chairman - Technology Work Group (ATG)
                           Member- Product Standards and Data Committee
                           Steering Committee - Sustainability Work Group

BOSAL  INTERNATIONAL, Ann Arbor, Michigan                                       1999-01
   President North American Operations
   P & L responsibility Bosal North America:  5 plants and Tech Center. Automotive exhaust system
   manufacturing and sales in the US, Canada and Mexico.  North American sales of $100+MM
   Member, Board of Directors  - Bosal International

KAISER ALUMINUM CORPORATION
   VP & General Manager Kaiser Automotive Castings and Kaiser K-Fab Operations      1996-99
   P & L responsibility for Kaiser Foundry $18MM and K-Fab, extrusion fabrication $8MM businesses.


ALCAN ALUMINUM CORPORATION! 988-96
   VP - Alcan Automotive Castings / General Manager Altek                           1993-96
   Business development and P&L responsibility for Altek, a 50/50 Joint Venture between Alcan and
   Teksid (Fiat),sales $30MM. International commercialization of cast aluminum automotive control
   arms.

   General Manager - Automotive Castings Division- North America                    1992-93
   P&L responsibility, foundry producing automotive cylinder heads and intake manifolds.  Expanded
   product focus to automotive control arms using innovative casting process technology.

   Director - Engineering and Automotive  Business Development                      1988-91
   Responsible for automotive market strategic planning and led product and process engineering
   support group. Business grew from start-up to over $100 MM in four years.


GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Warren, Ml                                      1969-88

   Manager Engine Development Chevrolet-Pontiac-Cadillac Group
   Manager Chevrolet L-4 and V-6 Advanced Design
   Senior Development Engineer-V-8 Engine Control Systems
   Development Engineer-V-8 Truck Engine Control Systems
   Passenger Fleet Planner - Chevrolet Fuel Economy Planning
                                                                                      51
 image: 








   System Design Engineer- GM Transportation Systems
   Product Assurance Analyst - Engineering Staff
   Manager- Chevrolet Military Vehicle Proving Ground Operations

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS:

       MBA - University of Detroit - Finance and Operations Research
       BSME - General Motors Institute

       Registered Professional Engineer, Michigan

       Society of Automotive Engineers
             Co-Director- Light  Materials Section

       American Extruders Council

       Aluminum Association
             Aluminum Transportation Group (ATG) - Member (since 1990)
                                                 Member of the Executive Committee
                                                 Chairman - Technology Work Group
             Aluminum Products and Standards Group- Member (since 1998)
             Sustainability Work Group - Member (since 2009)


       Advanced studies / Certifications
             Ohio State Univ. (Fisher College) - Certified Lean Manager
             MIT - Lean Manufacturing / Value Stream Management
             Plante & Moran - Executive  Leadership Forum
             Goldradt Institute - Theory of Constraints Leader Certification
             TMB - Kaizen Implementation
                                                                                       52
 image: 








Srdjan Simunovic

Computational Engineering and Energy Sciences Group                        865-771-9919
Computer Science and Mathematics Division                             865-241-0381(fax)
Oak Ridge National Laboratory                                 simunovicsBornl. gov

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Tennessee Knoxville

Education:

University of Split, Croatia              Civil Engineering     B.S.    1988
Carnegie Mellon University, USA        Civil Engineering     M.S.   1991
Carnegie Mellon University, USA        Civil Engineering     Ph.D.  1993

Professional Expertise:

My research expertise includes computational modeling of materials and structures, modeling of impact
and armor materials, strain rate sensitivity of materials, high velocity loading tests, polymer composite
materials manufacturing and crashworthiness, physics of fracture, and effect of size on material
properties. Current projects involve development of the next generation multi-physics code for simulation
of nuclear fuel and nuclear reactor thermomechanics problems, impact simulation of lightweight materials
for transportation,  and material design optimization for impact performance.

Professional Experience:

2009 - Present     Joint Faculty Appointment, University of Tennessee and ORNL.
2004 - Present     Distinguished Research Staff, Computational Materials Science and Computational
                  Engineering and Energy Sciences Group, ORNL.
1999 - 2003       Group Leader, Computational Materials Science Group, ORNL.
1998 - 2003       Senior Research Staff, Computational Materials Science Group, ORNL.
1994 - 1998       Research Staff, Computational Materials Science Group,ORNL.
1993 - 1994       Postdoctoral Researcher, Modeling and Simulation Group, ORNL.
1990 - 1993       Graduate Researcher, Department of Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
                  University, Pittsburgh, PA
1988 - 1990       Junior Lecturer, Civil Engineering Department, University of Split, Croatia

Recent Journal Publications (2006+):

1.  Piro, M. H. A., Besmann,, T. M., Simunovic, S., Lewis, B. J., Thompson, W. T., Numerical
    verification of equilibrium thermodynamic computations in nuclear fuel performance codes Journal of
    Nuclear Materials, 414 (2011) pp. 399-407.
2.  Wang, Y. L., Xu, H. B., Erdman, D. L.,Starbuck, M. J., Simunovic, S., Characterization of High-
    Strain Rate Mechanical Behavior of AZ31 Magnesium Alloy Using 3D Digital Image Correlation,
    Advanced Engineering Materials, 13 (2011) pp. 943-948.
3.  Barai, P., Nukala, P. K. V. V., Sampath, R., and Simunovic, S., Scaling of surface roughness in
    perfectly plastic disordered media. Physical Review E. 82 (2010) 056116.
4.  Mishra, S.K., Deymier, P.A., Muralidharan, K., Frantziskonis,  G., Pannala, S. and Simunovic, S.
                                                                                          53
 image: 








    Modeling the coupling of reaction kinetics and hydrodynamics in a collapsing cavity. Ultrasonics
    Sonochemistry, 2010, 17(1), 258-265.
5.   Nukala, P. K. V. V., Barai, P., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Fracture roughness in
    three-dimensional beam lattice systems. Physical Review E. 82 (2010) 026103.
6.   Frantziskonis, G., Muralidharan, K., Deymier, P., Simunovic, S., Nukala, P. and Pannala, S. Time-
    parallel multiscale/multiphysics framework. Journal of Computational Physics, 2009, 228(21), 8085-
    8092.
7.   Nukala, P. K. V. V., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Crack roughness in the two-
    dimensional random threshold beam model. Physical Review E. 78 (2008) 046105.
8.   Nukala, P. K. V. V., Zapperi, S., Alava, M. J. and Simunovic, S., Anomalous roughness of fracture
    surfaces in 2D fuse models. InternationalJournal of Fracture. 154 (2008) pp. 119 - 130.
9.   Mishra, S.K., Muralidharan, K., Deymier, P.A., Frantziskonis, G., Pannala, S. and Simunovic, S.
    Wavelet-Based Spatial Scaling of Coupled Reaction-Diffusion Fields. International Journal for
    Multiscale Computational Engineering, 2008, 6(4), 281-297.
10. Mishra, S.K., Muralidharan, K., Pannala, S., Simunovic, S., Daw,  C.S., Nukala, P., Fox, R., Deymier,
    P.A. and Frantziskonis, G.N. Spatiotemporal compound wavelet matrix framework for
    multiscale/multiphysics reactor simulation: Case  study of a heterogeneous reaction/diffusion system.
    International Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering, 2008, 6.
11. Muralidharan, K., Mishra, S.K., Frantziskonis, G., Deymier, P.A., Nukala, P., Simunovic, S. and
    Pannala, S. Dynamic compound wavelet matrix method for multiphysics and multiscale problems.
    Physical Review E, 2008, 77(2).
Synergistic Activities:
•   US DOT FHWA sponsored projects: Development of Heavy Vehicle Models for Roadside Barriers
           o  Finite Element Models  for Semitrailer Trucks
                  •  http://thyme.ornl.gov/FHWA/TractorTrailer
           o  Single-Unit Truck Heavy Vehicle Finite Element Model
                  •  http://thvme.ornl.gov/FHWA/F800WebPage
•   US DOT NHTSA sponsored project:
           o  Parametric Finite Element Model of Sport Utility Vehicle
                  •  http ://thyme .ornl.gov/newexplorer
•   US DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy sponsored projects on lightweight
    materials technologies:
           o  High Strain  Rate Characterization of Magnesium Alloys
                  •  http: //thyme .ornl. gov/Mg_ne w
           o  Dynamic Characterization and Modeling of Advanced High Strength Steel
                  •  http://thyme.ornl.gov/ASP_Main
           o  Development of material models for composite materials, fracture, and high  strain rate
              deformation
                  •  http://thyme.ornl.gov/composites
           o  Crashworthiness of Aluminum Intensive Vehicles
                                                                                            54
 image: 








                  •   http ://thyme .ornl.gov/audi
           o   Steel Processing Properties and their Effect on Impact Deformation of Lightweight
               Structures
                  •   http ://thvme .ornl.gov/aisi
•   US DOE Office of Nuclear Energy:
           o   Development of new multi-physics nuclear fuel simulation code AMP
                                                                                             55
 image: 








                     Appendix B:  Conflict of Interest Statements

                       Conflict of Interest and Bias for Peer Review
Background

Identification and management of potential conflict of interest (COI) and bias issues are vital to
the successes and credibility of any peer review consisting of external experts. The
questionnaire that follows is consistent with EPA guidance concerning peer reviews.l

Definitions

Experts in a particular field will, in many cases, have existing opinions concerning the subject of
the peer review. These opinions may be considered bias, but are not necessarily conflicts of
interest.

Bias: For a peer review, means a predisposition towards the subject matter to be discussed that
could influence the candidate's viewpoint.

Examples of bias would be situations in which a candidate:

    1.  Has previously expressed a position on the subject(s) under consideration by the panel; or

    2.  Is affiliated with an industry, governmental, public interest, or other group which has
       expressed a position concerning the subject(s) under consideration by the panel.
                                                                                   r\
Conflict of Interest:  For a peer review, as defined by the National Academy of Sciences,
includes any of the following:

    1.  Affiliation with an organization with financial ties directly related to the outcome;

    2.  Direct personal/financial investments in the sponsoring organization or related to the
       subject; or

    3.  Direct involvement in the documents submitted to the peer review panel... that could
       impair the individual's objectivity or create an unfair competitive advantage for the
       individual or organization.
1 U.S. EPA (2009). Science Policy Council Peer Review Handbook. OMB (2004).  Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review.

 NAS (2003). "Policy and Procedures on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflict or Interest for Committees Used in
the Development of Reports" (www.nationalacademies.org/coi).
                                                                                         56
 image: 








Policy and Process

•   Candidates with COI, as defined above, will not be eligible for membership on those panels
    where their conflicts apply.

•   In general, candidates with bias, as defined above, on a particular issue will be eligible for all
    panel memberships; however, extreme biases, such as those likely to impair a candidate's
    ability to contribute to meaningful scientific discourse, will disqualify a candidate.

•   Ideally, the composition of each panel will reflect a range of bias for a particular subject,
    striving for balance.

•   Candidates who meet scientific qualifications and other eligibility criteria will be asked to
    provide written disclosure through a confidential questionnaire of all potential COI and bias
    issues during the candidate identification and selection process.

•   Candidates should be prepared, as necessary, to discuss potential COI and bias issues.

•   All bias issues related to selected panelists will be disclosed in writing in the final peer
    review record.
                                                                                         57
 image: 








                       Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

                  Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review


Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

    1.  Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

    2.  If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
       circumstances.

    3.  Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question.  For example, to the
       extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse,
       dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing
       the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to
       accurately answer the questions.

Questions

    1.  Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
       contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   2.  Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current
       plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the
       completion of this peer review panel?

       YES X      NO                 DON'T KNOW
       I manage lightweight materials funding for the U.S. Department of Energy's Vehicle
       Technologies Program so I am currently supporting work in the area of vehicle weight
       reduction and I anticipate continued support for work in this area. I do not actually participate
       in any research or development in this area, though the Department of Energy does.

   3.  Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
       financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
       to the subject of peer review)?

       YES         NO  X              DON'T KNOW
       Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
       reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
       subject of this peer review?
                                                                                     58
 image: 








       YES X      NO                  DON'T KNOW
       As a DOE employee I often give technical talks and seminars where I discuss the importance
       of weight reduction for transportation energy reduction. I also frequently discuss the
       materials engineering details of vehicle weight reduction and express my opinions on the
       technical challenges and appropriate research targets.

    5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X               DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO  X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO  X               DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately.  I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
William Joost
Name
                                                03/01/2012
Signature            ^    *                      Date
                                                                                      59
 image: 








                       Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

                  Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review


Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

    1.  Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

    2.  If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
       circumstances.

    3.  Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the
       extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse,
       dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing
       the questions to  such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to
       accurately answer the questions.

Questions

    1.  Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
       contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   2.  Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current
       plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the
       completion of this peer review panel?

       YES X      NO                 DON'T KNOW
       OSU has plans to do research on lightweight multi-material structures for automotive
       applications.

   3.  Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
       financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
       to the subject of peer review)?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   4.  Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
       reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
       subject of this peer review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
                                                                                     60
 image: 








    5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
Glenn Daehn
Name
                                            2-1-12
                                            Date
                                                                                     61
 image: 








                       Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

                  Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review


Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

    1.  Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

    2.  If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
       circumstances.

    3.  Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the
       extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse,
       dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing
       the questions to such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to
       accurately answer the questions.

Questions

    1.  Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
       contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   2.  Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current
       plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the
       completion of this peer review panel?

       YES X      NO                 DON'T KNOW
       The Ohio State University has plans to focus research efforts on lightweight structures for
       automotive applications.

   3.   Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
       financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
       to the subject of peer review)?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   4.  Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
       reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
       subject of this peer review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
                                                                                     62
 image: 








   5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
Kristina Kennedy
Name
                                               1-25-12
Signature                         Xf           Date
                                                                                     63
 image: 








                       Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

                  Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review


Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

    1.  Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

    2.  If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
       circumstances.

    3.  Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the
       extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse,
       dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing
       the questions to  such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to
       accurately answer the questions.

Questions

    1.  Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
       contributor, or an earlier reviewer of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   2.  Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current
       plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the
       completion of this peer review panel?

       YES X      NO                 DON'T KNOW
       The Ohio State University has plans to be involved in lightweight structures research.

   3.   Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
       financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
       to the subject of peer review)?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   4.  Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
       reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
       subject of this peer review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
                                                                                     64
 image: 








    5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
Anthony Luscher
Name
                                               1/27/2012
Signature   f    I   "                          Date
                                                                                     65
 image: 








                       Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

                  Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review


Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

    1.  Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

    2.  If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
       circumstances.

    3.  Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the
       extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse,
       dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing
       the questions to  such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to
       accurately answer the questions.

Questions

    1.  Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
       contributor, or an earlier reviewer  of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   2.  Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current
       plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the
       completion of this peer review panel?

       YES X      NO                 DON'T KNOW
   3.  Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
       financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
       to the subject of peer review)?

       YES X      NO                 DON'T KNOW
   4.  Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
       reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
       subject of this peer review?

       YES X      NO                 DON'T KNOW
                                                                                     66
 image: 








   5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
D. A. Richman
Name
                                               Feb. 14. 2012
Signature                                       Date

*** Submitted with attachment explaining "Yes" responses to questions 2, 3 and 4.
                                                                                     67
 image: 








To:    Brian P. Menard                                       Date:  Feb. 14,2012
       SRA International, Inc.

From:  Douglas A. Richman
       Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC

Subject:      Peer Review - Peer Review FEV Light Duty Vehicle Report

Brian,

This note is written to clarify "yes" responses on questions 2, 3 and 4 of the Conflict of Interest
survey.

My current position is Vice President of Engineering and Technology for Kaiser Aluminum
Fabricated Products, LLC.  A portion of Kaiser business (<10%) is involved in the development
of lightweight  materials and semi-finished mill  products for use in  motor vehicles. My role at
Kaiser Aluminum  involves me in this work.   It is  the  intention of Kaiser and myself, as
employee, to continue active involvement in supplying highly engineered aluminum products to
automotive industry  customers.  T  his  may  include  commenting,  reviewing, testifying,
publishing, making public statements, or taking positions on the subject matter of this review.
Both Kaiser Aluminum and I have a financial stake in the outcome of the review.

My responsibilities in Kaiser  include representing Kaiser on  the Aluminum Association -
Aluminum  Transportation  Group (ATG)  where  I  am a member  of the ATG Executive
Committee. The ATG actively develops and promotes aluminum weight reduction technologies
in a number of transportation sectors including  automotive. ATG efforts include  funding third
party  weight  reduction technology development and reporting  resultant  advancements to
customer groups, government entities and trade media.  As an ATG representative I am regularly
involved in commenting, reviewing, publishing, making public statements, and taking positions
on the subject matter of this review. The Aluminum Association and I have a financial  stake in
the outcome of the review.

From our discussion, understand that it is  often the case in peer reviews that reviewers have a
range of conflicts and  biases, and that it is critical that these conflicts and biases be disclosed. I
also understand that an independent, impartial, and expert panel should and will reflect the range
of conflicts and  biases.  I agree  to review  the materials  provided me  in the most impartial,
objective, and scientific manner possible.
Regards,
D. A. Richman
                                                                                    68
 image: 








                       Conflict of Interest and Bias Questionnaire

                  Lotus Mass-Reduction Report (Lotus 2) Peer Review


Instructions to Candidate Reviewers

    1.  Please check YES/NO/DON'T KNOW in response to each question.

    2.  If your answer is YES or DON'T KNOW, please provide a brief explanation of the
       circumstances.

    3.  Please make a reasonable effort to answer accurately each question. For example, to the
       extent a question applies to individuals (or entities) other than you (e.g., spouse,
       dependents, or their employers), you should make a reasonable inquiry, such as emailing
       the questions to  such individuals/entities in an effort to obtain information necessary to
       accurately answer the questions.

Questions

    1.  Are you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer, an author,
       contributor, or an earlier reviewer  of the document(s) being reviewed by this panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   2.  Do you (or you spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have current
       plans to conduct or seek work related to the subject of this peer review following the
       completion of this peer review panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   3.  Do you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer have any known
       financial stake in the outcome of the review (e.g., investment interest in a business related
       to the subject of peer review)?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   4.  Have you (or your spouse/partner or dependents) or your current employer commented,
       reviewed, testified, published, made public statements, or taken positions regarding the
       subject of this peer review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
                                                                                     69
 image: 








    5.  Do you hold personal values or beliefs that would preclude you from conducting an
       objective, scientific evaluation of the subject of the review?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   6.  Do you know of any reason that you might be unable to provide impartial advice or
       comments on the subject review of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
   7.  Are you aware of any other factors that may create potential conflict of interest or bias
       issues for you as a member of the panel?

       YES         NO X              DON'T KNOW
Acknowledgment

I declare that the disclosed information is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and that
no real, potential, or apparent conflict of interest or bias is known to me except as disclosed. I
further declare that I have made reasonable effort and inquiry to obtain the information needed to
answer the questions truthfully, and accurately. I agree to inform SRA promptly of any change
in circumstances that would require me to revise the answers that I have provided.
Srdjan Simunovic
Name
  _   	                               2/28/2012
SigrrSture        ^~                            Date
                                                                                     70
 image: 








                                    SRA
                                    INTERNATIONAL, INC.
                                    Honesty and Service*
                           Appendix C:  Peer Review Charge

                                 Charge to Peer Reviewers of
       Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle

In developing programs to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty highway vehicles,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has to
evaluate the safety of lightweighted automotive designs as well as the methods and costs of proposed
technologies to achieve this design.

The 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility
Vehicle (FEV Report) is a continuation (e.g., Phase 2 study) of the original Phase 1 Low Development
study from Lotus Engineering. The report reviews the amount of mass reduction in the Low
Development case ("20%") from the Lotus  Engineering Phase 1 study. This is done through analysis of
the assumptions for the Body-in-White (BIW), and through an up-to-date re-analysis of light weighting
options for all of the other vehicle components of which the Lotus Engineering assumptions are a part.
An in-depth cost evaluation of all technologies is included. The FEV Report consists of two parts: In the
first part, FEV's contractor, EDAG, has designed and developed the BIW structure in CAE in order to
demonstrate that it meets Federal  Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Light-Duty Vehicles using
LS-DYNA. The analysis includes materials, methods, and related costs to  assembly and manufacturing.
The second part of the report is an in-depth investigation of "other than  BIW" vehicle systems based
upon discussions with suppliers, Lotus Phase  1 report ideas, and FEV's experience and expertise.

You are being asked to review and  provide expert comments on both parts of the FEV report, which you
will be able to access via FEV's FTP site. This site will also provide  you access to the CAE model, which
you will review to ensure that the CAE code represents the information presented in the report, and
related AVI files to allow you to review the modeling results.  The  written report supplies charts and
figures of the results.  If you have the FMVSS crash setups, then you may choose to run the unencrypted
model in those scenarios; however, you are not required to do so. Please Note: NHTSA staff has offered
to assist you by providing FEA results or a configured input deck to relieve you from having to run the
model.  Should you choose to do this, SRA and EPA will coordinate between you and NHTSA. You will also
review the design and cost portions of the model.  The cost part of the project is a bottom-up approach
based on the specific vehicle systems including BIW, brakes, suspension,  closures, and engine, and
accounting for details of every cost factor.

EPA is seeking your expert opinion on the technologies utilized, methodologies employed, and validity of
findings regarding the FEV report. The CAE modeling portion of the FEV report, written by EDAG, begins
by comparing the baseline Toyota Venza model crash results with the actual Venza FMVSS crash results,
and also compares the bending and torsional stiffness values. The report next presents the results of
the CAE model when Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Low Development ideas  are implemented, along with
the corresponding NVH results.  EDAG then takes on a new design for the BIW, utilizing its optimization
program for components development given loads and other parameters, and presents NVH data and
full vehicle crash simulation as well as manufacturing cost estimation.  EDAG has not included material
                                                                                         71
 image: 








properties, forming techniques, or bonding techniques as the changes to the BIW outside of the steel
family are minor.

EPA is also seeking your expert opinion on the technologies utilized, methodologies employed and
validity of findings in areas "other than the BIW" for this mass reduced design.  FEV has analyzed the
Toyota Venza in a number of systems, sub systems, and sub sub-systems and has chosen a number of
areas for mass reduction.  Some of the ideas are taken directly from the Lotus Engineering Phase 1
report, and some are new. FEV presents a breakout of the mass within each system, the ideas
considered and the ideas chosen in the system, use of the technologies in industry today, and their cost
impact on vehicle production.  FEV has approximately 4,000 cost spreadsheets containing details of the
costing process. Although the report includes only a summary of these spreadsheets within an
appendix, the spreadsheets themselves are available for review should you choose to do so. In addition
to performing detailed cost breakout, FEV has also contacted suppliers to verify some of the cost
estimates.

In your review of the report, EPA asks that you orient your comments, to the extent of your expertise
and experience, toward the following five areas: (1) assumptions and data sources, (2) vehicle design
methodological rigor; (3) vehicle crashworthiness testing methodological rigor (CAE only); (4) vehicle
manufacturing cost methodological rigor; and (5) conclusion and findings. You should provide your
responses in the table that is attached to this peer review charge, adding comments, as necessary, at
the end of each section of the table.

This broad span of technical areas suggests that reviewers  may well have much deeper technical
expertise and experience in some areas and a working knowledge in others. As a result, the level of
detailed technical review to  be given by each reviewer might vary significantly across the general
category areas. Although  EPA is requesting response to the areas specified above as well as to general
issues set out in section 6 of the table, you are strongly encouraged to identify additional topics  or
depart from these examples as necessary to best apply your particular area(s) of expertise in review of
the overall study.

Comments should be sufficiently clear and detailed to allow readers to thoroughly understand their
relevance to the FEV report. All materials provided to you as well as your review comments should be
treated as confidential, and should neither be released nor discussed with others outside of the
review panel.  Once EPA, FEV, and EDAG have made their reports public, EPA will notify you that you
may release or discuss the peer review materials and your review comments with others.

Please deliver your final written comments to SRA International no later than Wednesday, March 29.

Should you have questions about what is required in order to complete this review or need additional
background material, please contact Brian Menard at SRA (Brian Menard@sra.com) or (434-817-4133).
If you have any questions about the EPA peer review process  itself, please contact Ms. Ruth Schenk in
EPA's Quality Office, National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (schenk.ruth@epa.gov) or (734-
214-4017).
                                                                                           72
 image: 








                                                        Appendix D:  Reviews
                    Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
                                                     Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)

                                                             William Joost
                                                       U.S. Department of Energy
    1.  ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                             COMMENTS
Please comment on the validity of any data sources and assumptions
embedded in the study. Such items include material choices, technology
choices, vehicle design, crash validation testing, and cost assessment that
could affect its findings.
The material selection process used in this study suggests a good
understanding of the cost and manufacturing impacts of changing between
different steel, Al, Mg, and plastic/composite based materials. Generally the
material selections are appropriate for the performance, manufacturing, and
cost requirements of the particular systems. Identifying production examples of
the materials in similar systems is very important for establishing credibility -
the project team did an excellent job  identifying production examples of most
material replacements. There are, however, a few material selections where
additional consideration may be necessary:

The transmission case subsystem (pg  269) features the use of a Sr bearing Mg
alloy. Recently, Sn based alloys have been produced and (I believe) used in
production for similar applications. The use of Sn as an alloying ingredient
accomplishes many of the same goals (improved high temp creep performance,
for example) at a lower cost.  It may be worth investigating these new alloys as
an opportunity to reduce the cost of the lightweight transmission case
subsystem. If not, the selection of a Sr alloy is reasonable.

The feasibility of using hot rolled blanks in the body structure would be further
emphasized by providing production examples for vehicles of >200k units per
year. Similarly, the use of a 7000 series Al rear bumper is questionable - a
                                                                                                                                 73
 image: 








                                                                       production example for a high volume, low cost vehicle should be provided.

                                                                       The use of Thixomolded Mg seat components should be reconsidered.
                                                                       Thixomolding does have the potential to provide improved ductility compared
                                                                       to die casting, however the process is generally not well regarded in the
                                                                       automotive community due to concerns over limited supply and press tonnage
                                                                       limits (which limit the maximum size of the components that can be
                                                                       manufactured this way). If there is a production example of thixomolding for
                                                                       >200k unites per year in automotive, then it should be cited in the report. If
                                                                       there is no example then I would suggest switching to die casting (or super
                                                                       vacuum die casting) - the weight reduction and cost will likely be similar.
                                                                       It's not clear how the mass savings were achieved in the wheels and tires. The
                                                                       report states that a 2008 Toyota Prius wheel/tire assembly will be used in place
                                                                       of the stock Venza wheel - however the report also states (pg 544) that the
                                                                       Prius wheel will be normalized up to the 19"x7" to maintain the original styling
                                                                       of the Venza. The technology employed in the Prius wheel is not different from
                                                                       the stock Venza wheel so why should a scaled-up Prius wheel  weigh less than
                                                                       the original Venza wheel? There are also inconsistencies in the report - table
                                                                       F.5-18 references eliminating the spare tire wheel while downsizing the spare
                                                                       tire - why would there be a tire with no wheel? Lastly, if the Prius wheel/tire is
                                                                       scaled up to match the stock Venza size then the spare wheel/tire must also be
                                                                       scaled up - it's not clear that this happened. You are taking significant credit for
                                                                       weight reduction in the wheels and tires (~2% of total vehicle  weight) but it's
                                                                       not clear how this is achieved.

                                                                       Many of the parts in the frame have been changes to a GF Nylon (pg 667). This
                                                                       may not be unreasonable, but production examples should be provided.
If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide
suggestions for available data that would improve the study.
Two plastic technologies are very widely employed in this design: PolyOne and
MuCell. It seems that the companies who license/manufacture these
technologies were used as the primary source to determine feasibility.
However they are likely to be optimistic regarding the capability of their
materials. I agree that these materials are appropriate for the indicated
applications, however I feel that the credibility would be improved by including
                                                                                                                                     74
 image: 









other sources (OEMs, Tier 1) or more production examples for existing
platforms. With such a large amount of weight reduction attributed to PolyOne
and MuCell, it would be beneficial to have a very strong case for capabilities.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
75
 image: 








    2.  VEHICLE DESIGN METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                              COMMENTS
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art design methods have
been employed and the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits
strong technical rigor.  You are encouraged to provide comments on the
information contained within the unencrypted model provided by EDAG; the
technologies chosen by FEV; and the resulting final vehicle design.
The report uses a (very thorough) piece-wise approach to weight reduction -
each system is broken down and weight reduction opportunities for the
individual components are identified. The weight-reduced components are
then reassembled into the final vehicle. I believe that this provides a
conservative estimate for the weight reduction potential of the Venza, where a
vehicle-level redesign would provide greater weight reduction. However, I am
also of the opinion that the approach used here is in line with industry practice
so; while this may not yield the maximum reasonable weight reduction, it is
likely to yield a value more in-line with industry-achievable weight reduction.

It is particularly helpful (and credible) to see descriptions technologies that
were considered, but abandoned due to performance concerns  (e.g. reverting
to a timing belt), manufacturing capabilities, (e.g. using a MuCell manifold), and
cost  (e.g. Mg oil pan).

The suspension design process lacks sufficient detail to make the cost and
weight estimates credible. Considerable Al is used to replace steel at a very
minimal cost penalty. However, as the report indicates, detailed design and
validation is necessary to confirm that these changes would be viable for the
Venza. For example, changing to a hollow Al control bar is not an industry
standard practice and the use of a hollow section may require significant
changes to geometry in order to meet the stiffness and strength requirements.
While a hollow Al control bar is feasible, I'm not confident that it can be
substituted into the design so easily. A $0.40/kg-saved cost penalty for
changing a significant number of components from mild steel to Al seems to be
an underestimate.
                                                                                                                                      76
 image: 








Please comment on the methods used to analyze the technologies and
materials selected, forming techniques, bonding processes, and parts
integration.
The forming, joining, and integration techniques used in the report were
analyzed only by referencing production examples or companies who produce
similar products. Detailed design work would certainly include a more thorough
analysis of the manufacturing techniques however for the scope of this report I
believe that the level of analysis is appropriate.
If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to
help select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering
rigor for 2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to
improve this study.
This is not my area of expertise
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
                                                                                                                                    77
 image: 








    3.  VEHICLE CRASH WORTH I NESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR.
       (CAE only)
                              COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure's
structural integrity (NVH, etc.) and safety crashworthiness.
The baseline testing and comparison process (pgs. 67-128) is very thorough.
The team establishes credibility in the proposed design by performing an initial
baseline comparison against the production Venza - this suggests that the
modeling techniques used can reasonably predict the performance of the
lightweight design.  It is unfortunate that the deformation mode comparisons
could not be made quantitative (or semi-quantitative) somehow. Comparing
how the model and test look after a crash gives an indication of deformation
mode, but the comparison seems subjective. For example, image D-28 (pg 95)
seems to show slightly different failure mechanisms in the CAE model versus
the real test.

The report notes that the bushing mountings were rigid in the model while they
likely failed in the real vehicle. I would expect that these failures are designed
into the vehicle to support crash energy management. The results crash pulses
(pg 98) for the model and test look fairly similar, but it is unfortunate that this
crash  energy mechanism was  not captured.

The intrusion correlation for the baseline model is very good. This again adds
credibility to the modeling approach used here.

On page 386 the report states that the Mg CCB was not included in the crash or
NVH analysis. Replacing a steel CCB with Mg is likely to have a significant
impact on both crash and NVH performance. The technology is viable (and has
been used on production vehicles as stated) however the crash energy
management and NVH performance must be offset by adding weight
elsewhere in the vehicle. The  CCB plays a role in crash and a major role in NVH
so I do not think that it is appropriate to suggest that the material replacement
will have the reported results in this case. My suggestion is to leave the CCB as
steel in the weight analysis (or go back and redo the crash and NVH modeling,
which I suspect is not viable).
                                                                                                                                    78
 image: 








Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing
methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical rigor.
If you have access to FMVSS crash setups to run the model under different
scenarios in LS-DYNA, are you able to validate the FEV/EDAG design and
results? In addition, please comment on the AVI files provided.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented
elsewhere to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor
for 2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve
the study.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
This is not my area of expertise
N/A


79
 image: 








    4.  VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE
       BIW and Vehicle)
                              COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle
body structure's manufacturing costs.
Overall, the costing methods used in this study seem to be very thorough. The
details of the approach provide considerable credibility to the cost estimates,
however there will always be concerns regarding the accuracy of cost models
for systems where a complete, detailed engineering design has not been
established.  I believe that this report does a good job of representing the cost
penalties/benefits of the technologies but I would still anticipate negative
response from industry. There a few examples where I believe that the cost
was underestimated or where additional data could be helpful in corroborating
the results:

The engine cost comparison suggests that the 2.4L engine will cost less than the
2.7L engine due to reduced material content (smaller engine). The analysis goes
on to say that the remaining costs (manufacturing, install, etc.) would be about
the same for both engines. This seems credible, but is it possible to compare
the price of both engine types as well? It may be possible to find prices for both
of these engines from a Toyota  dealer, and while price is certainly different
than cost, it would be helpful in establishing that the cost differential estimate
is reasonably accurate.

Regarding the cylinder head subsystem (pg 211), the report notes that a switch
from Mg to plastic for the head covers introduces engineering challenges
related to the cam phaser circuitry. While the report identifies two production
examples of this change, these are for high cost engines. It seems unlikely that
the designs would achieve the quoted cost savings given that this has only been
applied to high cost engines and there are recognized difficulties in the
engineering/design.

Regarding the body redesign, the estimated cost increase due to materials and
manufacturing ($231.43, pg 333) for a weight savings of 67.7kg produces a
weight reduction penalty of about $3.42/kg-saved which seems  appropriate for
                                                                                                                                      80
 image: 








                                                                       the materials and assembly processes suggested in the report.

                                                                       I don't find the cost estimates for the seats to be credible (pg 378). If it's
                                                                       possible to reduce the weight of the seats (which represent a significant
                                                                       portion of vehicle weight) while saving significant cost, why would there be any
                                                                       steel seats in production? These are "bolt on" parts that are provided to the
                                                                       OEMs by suppliers so this would be a relatively easy change to make if the
                                                                       cost/weight trade-off shown  in this report is true. The report should, at the
                                                                       very least, address why these kinds of seats are not more prevalent in current
                                                                       vehicles.

                                                                       Why is there a cost savings for the front axle hub (pg 555)? If you are proposing
                                                                       to scallop the hub during forging then you will still need the same amount of
                                                                       input material - some of it will  be removed during scalloping, but you will not
                                                                       get a cost savings. Also, it's not made explicitly clear that the current hub  is
                                                                       forged. If you are proposing to  move from a cast hub to a forged hub then the
                                                                       cost will most certainly increase. If the cost savings here is due to the estimated
                                                                       weight savings in the final part  (i.e. pay for less material) then this indicates
                                                                       that the model is not correctly capturing the yield from the process.
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have
been employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits
strong technical rigor.
This is not my area of expertise
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented
elsewhere to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design
for 2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve
this study.
This is not my area of expertise
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The change from a cast Al engine block with cast Fe liners to a cast-over Mg/AI hybrid with PWTA coated cylinders is very interesting, but the cost penalty
estimate seems low relative to what I would expect. Previous work exploring the use of Mg intensive engines (which did not include the added complexity of
cast-in Al liners) suggests a cost penalty of $3.89 per pound saved (see http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm 08/3  automotive metals-
cast, pdf report B) versus this report which suggests a cost penalty of $3.51 per kilogram saved, about half as expensive. The cited study was performed on a
2.5 L engine, comparable to the Venza. The primary difference is that the Venza study includes downsizing which would save on material costs, but I'm not
                                                                                                                                      81
 image: 








confident that the savings would be as substantial as indicated in this report. It seems that something has been underestimated.

There are several examples where a cost savings has been calculated by reducing the size of a component, despite using more expensive material. For example
the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem shows a savings for the caliper subsystem and a modest increase in the cost of the rotor and shield. Some of the
cost savings here is due to reducing the size of the system (scaling to the 2008 Toyota Prius). However, there would still be a weight savings (albeit lower) if the
conventional cast iron materials were used and downsized to the 2008 Toyota Prius - this is the likely outcome in a real automotive environment. Given the
option to choose a more expensive, exotic, untested system that saves significant weight versus a conventional low cost system that saves less weight, it seems
like an OEM would choose the conventional solution. In this case the suggested weight savings are technically possible but would never happen in a practical
automotive environment.
                                                                                                                                    82
 image: 








5. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
Are the study's conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and
analytical rigor of the study?
Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of
the mass-reduced design valid?
Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates
the technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2017-2020
timeframe?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
COMMENTS
Yes. 1 identified various areas where the analysis or report could be improved,
but overall the methods used here provide a credible and reasonable estimate
of the potential for weight savings. Based on some of my earlier comments 1
would expect that actual costs to be somewhat higher than predicted in this
study. Additionally, real vehicles share components across platforms so using
vehicle-specific components would add additional cost. It is possible that the
cost curve would cross $0/lb-saved at a lower total weight savings than
suggested here.
Yes. As above, there is reason to believe that the true cost will be higher than
predicted here, but 1 think this analysis provides a useful estimate.
1 have not seen a report as thorough as this. There are several examples of
resources that provide useful information regarding weight reduction potential
such as
Cheah, LW. Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger
Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.
Joshi, A.M. Optimizing Battery Sizing and Vehicle Lightweighting for an
Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Lutsey, N. Review of technical literature and trends related to automobile
mass-reduction technology

83
 image: 








6. OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMMENT
Has the study made substantial improvements over previous available works
in the ability to understand the feasibility of 2017-2020 mass-reduction
technology for light-duty vehicles? If so, please describe.
Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for
2017-2020 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made
before the report is finalized? If so, please describe.
Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies
that you expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead
of) than the one Lotus has assessed for the 2017-2020 timeframe (Low
Development)?
Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g.,
vehicle performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness)
for which the mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise
from the baseline vehicle?
COMMENTS
Yes. Other studies have reviewed the mass saving potential of various
technologies individually, or imagined the impact of combining many
technologies. However 1 am not aware of a design study that takes an existing
vehicle and assesses each piece with the thoroughness used here.
No - 1 would not say that any deficiencies here are "critical"
Not in the 2017-2020 time frame. Switching to an advanced steel dominant
body with a few instances of Mg and Al seems appropriate for the time frame.
The considerable use of lightweight plastics is also in line with my expectations
for available technology in this time frame.
All of the areas listed here are somewhat concerning, but given the switch to
fairly conventional materials 1 believe that durability, driveability, and NVH
should be not be a significant issue. Detailed analysis work in these areas would
likely require some redesign which may add cost or weight, but 1 don't think it
would be overwhelming.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
84
 image: 








                              The Ohio State University

                        Kristina Kennedy's General Comments-

(1)   "Building a full vehicle model w/o the use of drawings or CAD data..." -^ Has this method of
     tear-down + scanning been proven out in industry or in other projects to understand how
     closely this method would correlate with actual data? Is this basically "reverse engineering"
     and is that an acceptable method?
(2)   FE Meshing Tool, ANSA -^ Did a quick Google search and did not find this product.  Am
     familiar with  ANSYS and others, but is ANSA an industry-standard tool? Just confirming the
     wide-use of such a tool out of curiosity.
(3)   "Bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance (when
     replacing with HSS)"  -^ This is an "of course" comment, right? HSS would absolutely produce
     worse results when replacing steel. These results were expected, correct?
(4)   Table 1.7.1: NVH Results Summary -^ The "Weight Test Condition" and "Weight BIW" are
     ALSO outside of limits (> 5%), but not noted in results. Only those highlighted in red are
     noted as "failures". All failures (> 5%) should be called out specifically since that was their
     target.
(5)   With respect to measuring powertrain CG and moment of inertia, notes "oscillation as an
     undamped" condition -^ Just confirming, this means no dynamic dampers were used in the
     engine room  modeling? Is this realistic? Acceptable practice?
(6)   Overall, well-written  and well-done...my conclusion (which they also reached) is YES, NVH
     WILL SUFFER when replacing steel with HSS and will OF COURSE make the vehicle MORE
     STIFF.
                                                                                      85
 image: 








    1.  ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                           COMMENTS
Please comment on the validity of any data sources and assumptions embedded in
the study. Such items include material choices, technology choices, vehicle design,
crash validation testing, and cost assessment that could affect its findings.
Glenn Daehn's comments
The data and sources appear to be very good, however at the time of this
review there are a few items that are unclear.

First there some statements that are referenced with superscripts,
however there is not a reference list that appears in the document.

Second, this report does an excellent job of documenting at a high-level
that the finite element analysis is carried out properly, showing
agreement with masses, stiffness and crash signatures of baseline
vehicles. However, it is important that all of the details be also available
to the public, such as the detailed material geometry (mesh files), stress-
strain flow-laws used for the materials, weld locations (more than a
figure), models used  for weld behavior and so on. This can be done by
reference or by making the LS-DYNA models public.  It is not clear at time
of review how this will be done, but it would be a great service to make
all this granular detail available. Similar statements can  be made
regarding the detail for components and  materials in the costing models.
Tony Luscher's comments
The data used appears to be valid and appropriate to the tasks that are
completed. Vehicle data for the Toyota Venza was obtained by scanning
the components and creating the CAD models. Material  data was found
from appropriate sources and databases. These were used to create a
crash test model for the vehicle and for cost estimation. A thorough
search of state-of-the-art vehicle design concepts was used as the basis
of mass reduction for the various vehicle systems.
                                                                                                                                    86
 image: 








If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide suggestions for
available data that would improve the study.
Glenn Daehn's comments
See above.
Tony Luscher's comments
None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Tony Luscher's comments
Data sources are well documented in the report and will aid if any additional investigation is needed. Several of them were checked for validity.
                                                                                                                                  87
 image: 








    2.  VEHICLE DESIGN METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                           COMMENTS
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art design methods have been
employed and the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor. You are encouraged to provide comments on the information contained
within the unencrypted model provided by EDAG; the technologies chosen by FEV;
and the resulting final vehicle design.
Glenn Daehn's comments The work is well done and technically rigorous.
Again, we encourage making all pertinent detail publicly available.
Tony Luscher's comments
The report does an excellent job of using state-of-the-art design
methods. The re-engineering process included vehicle teardown, parts
scanning, and data collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE
model. This raw STL geometry was then translated into an FE meshing
tool (ANSA) to create a finite element model.
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the technologies and materials
selected, forming techniques, bonding processes, and parts integration.
Glenn Daehn's comments
All is in accord with the state of the art.  It is not clear how welds are
represented in the FE-Model, without dissection of the LS-DYNA input
stacks.
Tony Luscher's comments
The Toyota body repair manual was used to identify the material grades
of the major parts of the body structure. These material grades were then
validated by material coupon testing.

The MSC Nastran solver was used to solve for the bending and torsion
stiffness of the body in white model. Good correlation was achieved
between physical stiffness testing and FEA stiffness results.
If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to help
select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering rigor for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
Glenn Daehn's comments
Everything appears to be well-done and in accord with the state of the
art.
Tony Luscher's comments
                                                                           None known.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
                                                                                                                                   88
 image: 








    3.  VEHICLE CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR. (CAE
       only)
                           COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure's
structural integrity (NVH, etc.) and safety crashworthiness.
Tony Luscher's comments
Trifilar suspension apparatus was used to find the CG and moments of
inertia of the engine and other major components. The dynamic FEA
modal setup was run using NASTRAN.  Vibration modes were analyzed by
the CAE model and then compared with physical test data in order to
correlate the FEA model to the physical model. Five different load case
configurations with appropriate barriers were placed against the full
vehicle baseline model. Models were created with high detail and fidelity
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing
methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis
exhibits strong technical rigor.
Tony Luscher's comments
Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed
and compared to the deformation modes of test photographs. Fidelity
was good. A few notes on these comparisons are noted on this page in
the additional comments section.
If you have access to FMVSS crash setups to run the model under different
scenarios in LS-DYNA, are you able to validate the FEV/EDAG design and results? In
addition, please comment on the AVI files provided.
Tony Luscher's comments
This reviewer has expertise in crash simulation. However due to time
constraints the model was not run under different scenarios in LS-DYNA.
No AVI files were found.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere
to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve the study.
Tony Luscher's comments
None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Tony Luscher's comments
                                                                           The caption on Figures 1.8.13 to 1.8.14 state that they are at 100 ms
                                                                           although the previous paragraph lists them as occurring at 80 ms. The
                                                                           muffler deformation looks quite different in Figure 1.8.14.

                                                                           Figure 1.8.33 is unclear and cannot be seen.
                                                                                                                                   89
 image: 








    4.  VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE BIW and
       Vehicle)
                           COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle body
structure's manufacturing costs.
Tony Luscher's comments
Mass reduction was analyzed first on a system level and then by a
component level basis. Mass reduction concepts were based upon a very
comprehensive literature review of new materials and manufacturing
processes and alternative designs ideas that appear in the open literature
and at trade shows. An assessment of these was made in terms of
technological readiness, fitness for use in mass production, risk, and cost.
In addition there were consultation with industry and experts.

These were found to be very thorough.
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have been
employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.
Tony Luscher's comments
The impact of costs, associated with mass reduction, was evaluated using
FEV's methodology and tools as previously employed on prior powertrain
analyses for EPA. Cost reduction assumptions are clearly laid out and are
reasonable. The report does a good job of realizing the inherent
challenges and risks in applying any new technology, let alone lightweight
technology, to a vehicle platform.  FEV describes the component
interactions both positive and negative in its recommendations.

The actual values in the EXCEL files were not checked.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere
to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
Tony Luscher's comments
None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Tony Luscher's comments
There are many typos and fragmented sentences in these sections. These should be corrected. Bookmark references do not all work.
                                                                                                                                   90
 image: 








    5.  CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
                           COMMENTS
Are the study's conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and analytical
rigor of the study?
Glenn Daehn's comments
At the time of review, Section G "Conclusions and Recommendations" is
unavailable. We hope that in this section FEV will point out the most
promising actions that auto makers may take to reduce mass while
conserving cost.
Tony Luscher's comments
The report's conclusions are based on sound engineering principals of
good rigor.
Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of the
mass-reduced design valid?
Glenn Daehn's comments
This study is carefully crafted with excellent attention to engineering
detail.  It is important to note that the overall environment for vehicle
design, manufacture and use is continually changing. See the "Additional
Comments" section of this document for further development of the
implications of this.
Tony Luscher's comments
This reviewer found the overall work to be thorough and well
documented. Therefore the conclusions are well supported and validated
by the engineering and modeling in the report.
Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates the
technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2017-2020 timeframe?
Glenn Daehn's comments
There are no more comprehensive or detailed studies that we are aware
of. This is an excellent compilation of ideas for practical vehicle mass
reduction and fuel efficiency improvement.
Tony Luscher's comments
None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Glenn Daehn's comments
The study does an excellent job within its scope. As this reviewer sees
the scope, the driving question is: Can a well-engineered relatively
modern vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza) have its mass reduced by 20% or
more, without significant cost penalty and while maintaining
                                                                                                                                   91
 image: 








crashworthiness. The answer to that question is a clear "YES".  Further,
this conclusion is backed with rigor and attention to detail. This is in my
mind, very clear, well-done and technically rigorous.

This reviewer believes that there are a few other important questions
that were not asked. These include:

1) Will the proposed changes in design pose any other important  risks in
manufacture or use? This can include: warranty exposure, durability,
increased noise, vibration and harshness, maintenance concerns,  etc.,
etc.

2) Will increasing regulatory constraints and/or consumer expectations
require increases in vehicle mass, opposing the mass reductions provided
by the improved practices outlined in this study?

Both these issues will make vehicle light weighting more difficult than this
report suggests. With respect to issue 1) there are a  number of materials
and design substitutions that may produce concerns with durability,
manufacturability and warranty claims. For example when substituting
polymers for metals, there are new environmental embrittlement modes
that may cause failure and warranty claims. Also, if substituting
aluminum for steel, multi-material connections may cause galvanic
corrosion problems. When using thinner sheets of higher strength steel,
formability may be reduced and springback may be more problematic.
Both these issues may preclude the use of the stronger material with a
similar design and may also increase the time and cost involved with die
development. Lastly there are always risks in any new design.  For
example, when using new brake designs, pad wear and squeal may  be
more pronounced.  All of these issues may  cause a manufacturer to avoid
the new technology.

There are also local constrains  on material thicknesses that are outside
this review methodology.  For example while a roof rail may meet crash
                                                         92
 image: 








and stiffness criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanently if a 99th
percentile male pulls on it exiting a vehicle. Similarly, parking lot and hail
dents may require greater thickness gauges than this study may indicate.

The problem of vehicle light-weighting and improved fuel economy is
seen here through the lens as being an engineering problem to be solved.
And in many ways it is. However, the forces of consumer expectations
and behaviors are an essential part of the problem. As an interesting
anecdote, the Model T Ford had a fuel economy of about 20 MPG, very
similar to the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road today.  No
modern consumer would choose a  Model T for many obvious reasons.
Our cars have become extensions of our living rooms with many electrical
motors driving windows, mirrors, seats and complex and costly HVAC and
infotainment systems. All of these  systems add weight, complexity and
use power. Further increased complexity of engines to improve
emissions and increase fuel economy has increased engine mass.

This study shows that with good engineering we can reduce vehicle mass
of an existing vehicle by 20% with little to no increased cost or adverse
consumer reaction. Based on our current course, it is just as likely this
benefit will be taken by improved mandated safety and emission features
as well as improved creature comforts.

Much can be gained through enlightened consumer behavior (assuming
the average consumer wants to reduce energy use and carbon footprint).
While much of this is outside the scope of this report, in particular it
would be useful if the average consumer would understand the lifecycle
environmental impacts of vehicle choice and of varied vehicle design, and
would adopt a  'less is more' ethic and see their transportation systems as
that, simply transportation. A more minimalist ethic that would move
against increasing vehicle size and the creep of multiple motors for seats,
mirrors, windows, etc., would reduce acquisition cost, maintenance cost
and energy cost.  This is in addition, of course, to the usual advice to
reduce fuel consumption (limit trips, limit speed, tire pressure,
                                                         93
 image: 








carpooling, etc. etc.) is still valuable.

It should also be noted that there are other potentially low-cost actions
that can be easily adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
reduce dependence on foreign oil. One of these is widespread adoption
of natural gas fuels for personal transportation.  Use of Compressed
Natural Gas (CNG), has lower fuel cost than gasoline, produces less
pollution and greenhouse gas emission per energy used, and requires
only very modest changes to  conventional vehicle architecture, with no
significant increases in complexity. The cost and size of a CNG tank and
the development of refueling infrastructure are the main barriers to
adoption of a technology that could have important and positive societal
benefits.

This is an excellent and useful study.  It is important however to recognize
the limitations of purely engineering solutions. And even within the
engineering realm, there are  many reasons that the implementation of
the solutions in this paper study will require much effort to become part
of mainstream automobiles.
                                                          94
 image: 








    6.  OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMMENT
COMMENTS
Has the study made substantial improvements over previous available works in the
ability to understand the feasibility of 2017-2020 mass-reduction technology for
light-duty vehicles? If so, please describe.
Glenn Daehn's comments
Without question. The only similar study also targeted the Venza.  This
provides much additional analysis and many additional ideas beyond the
Lotus study.
Tony Luscher's comments
                                                                            The major contribution of this study was to pull together and evaluate all
                                                                            of the current proven concepts that are applicable to a lightweight
                                                                            vehicle in the 2017-2020 timeframe. It is successful in this regard.
Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for 2017-
2020 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made before the
report is finalized?  If so, please describe.
Glenn Daehn's comments
Conclusions and recommendations section is missing.  This is an
important opportunity to reinforce the most important actions that
automakers can take.

The report still lacks the ability to trace some technical details all the way
back to the source. This is described previously.
Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies that you
expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead of) than the one
Lotus has assessed for the 2017-2020 timeframe (Low Development)?
Glenn Daehn's comments
It seems apparent that vehicles are moving more and more to multi-
materials construction and as we move away from steel-based
construction, joined primarily by resistance spot welds, there will be need
for additional joining technologies. Laser welding is mentioned as one
possible replacement for resistance spot welds, but it is expected that
over time there will be much more use of structural adhesives, self
piercing rivets, conformal joints and other joining strategies for the BIW.
Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g., vehicle
performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness) for which the
mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise from the baseline
vehicle?
Glenn Daehn's comments
Yes.  There are many other details with respect to nuances of customer
expectations, durability, warranty risks and manufacturability that are
discussed elsewhere in this review. This does not diminish the
importance of this great work. Just points out there are an enormous
amount of detailed work required to build an automobile, and the job is
                                                                                                                                     95
 image: 








                                                                       not finished.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
                                                                                                                             96
 image: 








                    Review of FEV Engineering Study:

         "Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis
                   - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle "

       By: Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum and the Aluminum Association)

1.0   Introduction

This report is a review the 2012 FEV project to identify mass-reduction opportunities for
a crossover sport utility vehicle  based on the 2009 Toyota Venza.  This study is a
continuation of the  Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Low Development (LD) study funded by
the Internal Council on Sustainable Transportation (ICCT)  in 2010.  Goal of the FEV
project is to identify practical mass reduction technologies to achieve a 20% reduction in
total vehicle mass  (342 Kg) at no  more than  10%  increase in  consumer cost while
meeting,  or exceeding,  all  crashworthiness, performance  and customer satisfaction
attributes provided by the baseline vehicle.

Body of the baseline vehicle is 31%  of total vehicle mass and has a dominant influence
on NVH and collision performance of the total vehicle.  This project involved extensive
engineering analysis of the vehicle body.  BIW and closure  materials and gauges were
optimization to exploit the maximum mass reduction potential from advanced low mass
automotive materials  and  advanced  manufacturing  processes.   Mass  reduction
initiatives are  identified for all vehicle systems including engine, transmission, interior,
suspension and  chassis  systems.    Most materials, manufacturing  processes and
components selected for the FEV vehicle technology package are proven, cost effective
and available for use on 2017 production vehicles.

Majority of mass reduction  concepts utilized are  consistent with recognized  industry
trends. Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components appear reasonable
and consistent with industry experience with similar components.  As  an  advanced
design concept study  this is an important and  useful body of work.  Results of the
project provide useful insight into potential vehicle mass reduction achievable with HSS
and AHSS materials.

This report is  a  review of  the methodologies employed,  technologies  selected and
validity of findings  in the FEV study.  This reviewer has experience in  vehicle mass
reduction engineering of body, engine and suspension systems. This review focuses on
those areas of the FEV project.
                                                                            97
 image: 








2.0   FEV Project Summary

      Mass reduction technologies selected in this project achieve:

                   Mass reduction    317 Kg (18.5%)

                   Cost impact      $92 (reduction)
                        FEV/EDAG Venza Mass Reduction

                                by Vehicle System
                                        Misc
                             Exhaust1!6  6 22220
                    r    ,    .. _  7  °             Suspension
                    Frame Mounting
                         17        ^^m  •h^.      69

                    Transmission
                        19
                                                      BIW, Closures
                                                          68

                                                      Mass reduction in Kg.
                              FEV/EDAG Venza
                         Mass Reduction by Vehicle System

Vehicle  content is decomposed into  20  vehicle  sub-groups.    Mass  reduction
opportunities are identified in all 20 sub-groups.   Over 90% of the mass reduction
achieved is concentrated  in 7 vehicle systems.  Within each of these sub-systems a
relatively short  list of  mass  reduction technologies generated the  majority  of mass
reductions achieved.  Over 95%  of all cost variances (increases and decreases) result
from the technology changes  in the same 7 vehicle sub-groups. Key sub-groups are:

                        Body
                        Suspension
                        Interior
                        Brakes
                        Engine
                        Transmission
                        Frame  / Mounting
                                                                           98
 image: 








1.1    Mass Reduction Methodology

Mass reduction efforts were organized into two segments: body and non-body.  Body
mass reduction  focused on  selection of materials  (steel,  aluminum, plastics and
magnesium), grades and gauges. Baseline Venza body design was not changed. Non-
body  mass reduction efforts  examined all vehicle systems for potential cost effective
mass reduction opportunities.   FEV utilized technical support from  two recognized,
technically qualified and highly  respected engineering services organizations:  EDAG
and Munro and Associates.
EDAG focused on body structural  engineering and cost modeling.   They conducted
detailed reverse engineering study the baseline Venza to establish  baseline vehicle
mass and structural characteristics and  develop  CAE,  FE  and collision simulation
models.  Calibrated FE  models were used  to develop an  optimized Venza body
structure.  EDAG Engineering analysis  is thorough and reflects the high  level of vehicle
engineering  expertise and know-how within  the EDAG organization.   Modeling and
simulation technologies utilized by EDAG are state-of-the art and EDAG has recognized
competencies in effectively deploying those tools.
The EDAG work presents a realistic perspective of achievable vehicle structure mass
reduction using available design optimization tools, practical engineering materials and
available manufacturing processes.  EDAG cost modeling of the baseline and reduced
mass vehicle structures.
Munro lead the process of identifying, analyzing, screening and selecting cost effective
mass reduction opportunities in all vehicle systems.   Munro  is a highly  respected
engineering organization specializing in benchmarking and lean product design.  Munro
process for achieving product mass and cost optimization is well developed and highly
effective. They utilize a creative mix of functional analysis,  competitive  benchmarking,
cross industry comparisons, advanced materials and manufacturing process knowledge
and sound  engineering analysis.  This segment of the  study  identified a  significant
number of practical mass reduction concepts in all 20 vehicle sub-groups. The majority
of mass reduction technologies selected for the final design are in some  current level of
volume production and appear cost effective and realistically achievable by 2017.

1.2    Cost Analysis Methodology

Costing models were maintained by EDAG.  A complete baseline vehicle cost model
was developed and calibrated to the estimated cost of the current Venza. The baseline
model was used to track cost changes driven by mass reduction technologies.

Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are based  on detailed  analysis of the
products, materials and  process utilized.   Estimating costs for new or emerging
technologies is a challenging process.  Advanced technology cost estimates are based
on a combination scaling from known products if available,  benchmarking from  similar
products, material supplier costs, analysis of advanced manufacturing cost, and expert
estimates. Labor rates and manufacturing overheads are maintained at documented
industry typical levels.
                                                                             99
 image: 








This cost tracking approach is fundamentally sound and valid.  Cost estimates for new
technologies are subject to validity of cost estimates and engineering judgments in the
estimate. This project included rigorous engineering assessments of all mass reduction
technology costs.

For most mass reduction technologies selected, cost estimates appear realistic and are
consistent with current production costs and prior vehicle mass reduction studies. In the
area of body sheet materials  there appears to be some assumptions that result in
estimated technology costs as much as 25% higher than volume production experience
would suggest.  This are is discussed in more detail in this report.

2.0   Baseline Vehicle Model - Body

EDAG conducted a detailed  reverse engineering process to  define baseline Venza
component mass and structural performance.  The process included: vehicle teardown,
identification of component mass and material composition  and  component scanning to
create digital models  of structural  components.  Part  connections (spot  weld, seam
weld, laser weld), dimensions (location, weld diameter, weld length), and characteristics
were documented during scanning process.  Material property data was  obtained by
coupon testing part samples.

Scan data, part weight and material information were used to create a CAE model of the
vehicle structure.  A finite element (FE) model was created from the CAE model using
ANSA mesh  software.  The  FE  model was used to evaluate NVH characteristics
(bending, torsion, modal analysis) of the structure using NASTRAN.  Model  results were
compared and calibrated with analytical test results to  establish the baseline analysis
model. CAE crash performance simulations (LS-DYNA) were conducted to  verify model
correlation with actual vehicle crash test performance in  National Highway Traffic Safety
Association (NHTSA) regulatory performance  testing. Model results were calibrated to
actual  Venza crash  performance  data.   The correlated crash  model became  the
baseline crash model for the remaining load cases.

EDAG is widely recognized as highly competent and experienced in vehicle structural
modeling, NVH and   collision simulation  and  structural  engineering.    LS-Dyna,
MSC/Nastran and ANSA are  valid and widely-used simulation tools,  commonly used
and  accepted within  the engineering community and the  industry  to perform  this
analysis.  The approach used  by EDAG to develop Venza  structural models is a state-
of-the art methodology utilizing proven modeling tools.

Structural models developed in this project were  calibrated to  physical test results of
actual  vehicle structures.  Simulation results appear reasonable and logical,  building
confidence  in the fidelity of the analysis.  Models have excellent correlation to actual
vehicle performance.  FMVSS  crash results are consistent with bending and torsional
stiffness properties.  There is  no apparent reason to question results of this modeling
and  simulation effort.  These models would be  expected to be  valid for comparison of
                                                                            100
 image: 








design alternatives.  These models would be expected to provide reliable assessments
of NVH and collision performance of the Venza structure.

Report conclusions with regard to NVH and collision performance do not substantially
overreach the capability and results of the analysis.  In some  relatively minor areas,
assessment to of the "optimized" structure is not fully supported by generally recognized
measures of structural performance.  These few relatively uncertainties do not diminish
the overall conclusion that the modeling and simulation efforts  are well done and the
major conclusions are valid useable.

2.1    Lotus "Low Development" Structure

This project included evaluation of the Lotus Engineering  "Low Development" Toyota
Venza reduced weight structure.  Lotus low-development design  used the baseline
Venza structure with "optimized" deployment of advanced  high strength steels.  Lotus
optimization process selected AHSS grades and gauges based on a load path analysis
derived from a Lotus developed FEA model of the Venza structure.

EDAG baseline modal  analysis model was  used to  evaluate Lotus selected material
grades and gauges.  Modal analysis results and corresponding  weight reduction were
comparable, but the bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable
performance.   Torsional stiffness is 20.4% less, and bending stiffness is 20.0% less
than the 5%  target performance established by  EDAG. Further crash validations of
Lotus Engineering's study were not conducted,  since it did not meet the NVH targeted
performance.
                                                                            101
 image: 








3.0   Mass Reduction

FEV decomposed  the total vehicle  into 20  sub-systems.   Each  sub-system was
aggressively examined to  identify  realistically achievable  and cost effective  mass
reduction opportunities. Majority of  mass reduction achieved (90%) is concentrated in
(7) vehicle sub-systems:
                            Mass
                          Reduction
            Body              68 Kg
            Suspension        69
            Interior            42
            Brakes            41
            Engine            30
            Transmission      19
            Frame, Mounts    17

These 7 sub-systems account for over 90% of the cost increases and decreases  in this
project.

This reviewer  has experience in  light weighting  of  body,  suspension and engine
systems. Comments in the following sections are limited to those vehicle sub-groups.

A significant number of creative and innovative mass reduction ideas were developed
and selected for the remaining (17)  sub-systems not discussed in this report.  Many of
the ideas appear to be appropriate consideration  as part of a total vehicle efficiency
improvement effort.
3.1    Body Optimization Overview

Body Sub-system includes: Body-in-White  (BIW), Closures,  Hood, Doors, Lift Gate,
Fenders.  This sub-system is the highest  mass sub-group at 529 Kg, 31% of total
vehicle mass.  Body group  design and material selection have a dominant influence on
vehicle  NVH and collision  performance.  For that reason, optimization  of the body
structure is a major focus of this project.

      Body sub-system -       BIW, Closures, Bumper, Fenders

      Optimization results -     71 Kg mass reduction
                              $230 cost increase

FEV body  mass reduction 68 Kg. (21 % of total vehicle mass reduction)

Baseline Toyota Venza body elements (BIW,  closures, bumpers) are predominantly a
mix of mild steel (48%) and HSS (49%) with a resulting mass  of 529 Kg (31%  of total
Venza mass).   This mix of materials  represents a comprehensive use of automotive
grade steels available when the Venza was originally designed.
                                                                           102
 image: 








Body related mass reductions from this baseline are indicative of improvements made
possible by advances in materials technology.

Venza  baseline BIW structure was used for both  the Lotus "Low  Development" and
EDAG  material optimization analysis.   Both studies  reduced BIW mass by similar
amounts, Lotus LD: 61  Kg, EDAG: 54 Kg.  Differences  between Lotus and EDAG
structures include: specific material grades and  gauges and joining  technology.  Lotus
LD  structure  used conventional  resistance  spot welding  while  the  EDAG structure
included  continuous laser welding for structurally significant joints.  BIW mass for the
two structures are similar:

         BIW Structure Mass
            Baseline          386 Kg
            Lotus Venza LD    325 Kg (-15.8%)
            EDAG Venza      332 Kg (-14 %)

Significant  difference bending  and torsional stiffness  between the Lotus and EDAG
structures (20%) do  not appear to be fully explained by the relative  difference in mass
between  the  structures.   Structural stiffness for a constant  shape is  dependent on
material gauge and modulus  and not  influenced by strength properties.  Auto  body
stiffness  can  be increased  by improving attachment integrity.  It would be helpful  to
understand the influence  of laser  seam  welding  on  body  NVH  and  collision
performance.
                                                                           103
 image: 








3.1    Body Optimization

Body  optimization was  accomplished  using EDAG body mass optimization process.
The calibrated Venza FEA model was used.  In this process alternate material  type,
grade and gauge were evaluated for NVH and collision performance.  Baseline Venza
body structure was not altered.  Materials evaluated include advanced high strength
steels (AHSS), aluminum, magnesium, plastics. Material gauges were selected based
on component part requirements (NVH, Collision) and properties of specific materials.
The body mass optimization process explored the potential of HSS, AHSS, aluminum,
magnesium and plastics.
Optimized body structure content summary:
                Baseline   Optimized
                  Mass      Mass
 Mass
Reduction
Materials Change
BIW
Doors
Hood
Lift Gate
Fenders
Bumpers
386.0 Kg
95.7
17.8
15.1
6.8
7.5
324.0
95.6
10.1
7.7
4.9
7.5
                                     51.0 Kg (13.2%)  HSS, AHSS, Gauge

                                          0           	

                                       7.7 (43%)      Aluminum

                                       7.2 (48%)      Aluminum

                                       1.9(28%)      Aluminum

                                         _0

               528.9 Kg   457.7 Kg    71.2 Kg (13.5%)

3.1.1 BIW Optimization
The EDAG optimized  BIW is predominantly  HSS  and AHSS with appropriate gauge
reductions.   Baseline  Venza is composed of 78% mild steel and 22% HSS.  This
material mix is representative of a comprehensive use of available materials at the time
this Venza model was designed. The optimization process selected HSS and AHSS for
over 80% of structure.
This study provides insight into practical BIW mass reductions achievable with recent
and anticipated  near term future  advancements  in automotive steels.  Using AHSS
aggressively with resultant gauge reductions achieved an 13.2% reduction in BIW mass
(3% reduction in total vehicle mass).  This finding is consistent with similar investigations
on the part of OEM organizations in North America and Europe.
Aluminum was selected for the hood, lift gate and fenders. Mass reduction achieved for
those  components were: Hood: 43%, Lift gate: 48% and Fenders: 28%.  Selection of
aluminum for these body components is consistent with OEM production experience and
several independent organization studies. The magnitude of mass reduction achieved
in this body group is also consistent with production experience.
                                                                          104
 image: 








3.1.2  Body Optimization - Costs

      Costs attributed to optimization of the body are reported as:

                                    Mass Reduction
                               Cost   $/Kg saved

            BIW              $110     $ 2.19    HSS, AHHS

            Hood             $  39     $ 5.08    Aluminum

            Lift Gate           $  30     $4.16    Aluminum

            Fenders           $  22     $10.93    Aluminum

                  Total        $210     $ 3.20

Cost increases projected for HSS and AHSS  are  marginally  higher than have been
reported in analytical studies and OEM experience in volume  production.  Production
vehicle studies of AHSS in  auto body applications have  suggested cost impact  of
reduced body mass can offset a  majority of the cost premiums associated with these
materials.

Cost increases projected for aluminum sheet  application are significantly higher than
has been seen in prior studies and in production OEM experience. The optimized body
includes three aluminum components: Hood, Fenders and Lift  Gate.  Mass reductions
attributed to these three product areas are  consistent with OEM production experience.
Estimated cost increases are significantly  higher than have been seen  in production
experience.

Using the  hood as an example, total cost of the baseline hood is estimated to be $43
while total cost of the aluminum  hood is estimated  to be $93.  Mass savings with the
aluminum  hood is 7.7  Kg  resulting  in a  net  cost  per Kg mass reduction of $6.49.
Production program experience with aluminum  hoods typical find a cost premium below
$4.50 per Kg mass reduction. Processing costs for a steel or aluminum hood should be
similar.  That similarity  is reflected the EDAG  cost model.   The main cost difference
between  hoods is in material  cost.  Examining  the  EDAG  cost  model it appears
aluminum sheet products were assessed a  base metal cost and a grade premium.  The
two factors appear  to  be  combined in the cost model results a  raw  material cost
substantially higher than actual market price for these materials.

EDAG cost models for auto body sheet materials (AHSS and aluminum) appear to be
overstating raw material costs. A review of  the costing models and correlation with
market prices for the materials and how raw material cost for sheet products is
established in the models may be appropriate.
                                                                           105
 image: 








3.1.3 Body Modeling - Comments

The following observations are submitted in the interest of completeness and do not
diminish validity of findings and conclusions of the overall project.

Body Modeling - Service Loads
Vehicle models developed in this study are valid and useful for the intended  scope of
this project.  Models addresses overall bending and torsional stiffness, free body modal
frequencies, roof  strength, and four crash test load cases.  These  are good indicators
and cover many of the primary structural performance concerns.
This analysis  does not address  what are  commonly  referred  to  as  "service loads,"
including jacking,  twist ditch, pothole impacts, 2G bumps, towing loads, running loads,
etc.  Running loads are typically suspension loads for a variety of conditions to address
strength,   stiffness and  fatigue  durability of the  body and suspension attachment
structures and points.   Without  these other  considerations, the optimization process
could may unrealistically reduce mass in components that  have little effect on overall
body stiffness or strength, yet are important for durability.
Body Modeling - Deformable Barrier
Modeling  of deformable barriers  has historically been  an  issue.   Source, nature  or
origination of the  deformable barriers (moving and fixed) used in  this  project are  not
explained.  In the offset  deformable barrier crash test load cases, overall deformations,
including  barrier  deformations are  reported.   The  reporting does, however, raise a
modeling  concern.  Barrier deformations of over 515 mm  are  reported for the offset
tests. The IIHS deformable barrier has 540 mm thickness of deformable material.  It is
not expected to compress completely.  Excessive barrier deformation has the  potential
to change the overall acceleration and deformation scenarios reported and influence the
mass optimization process.
Body Modeling - Average Acceleration
Overall acceleration  issues  are  not reported  in a format  normally used by collision
development engineers.  Charts of unfiltered  acceleration pulses are  shown  and
comparisons are  made  by evaluation of  peak accelerations.  "Average accelerations"
are referred to, but in this report average  is the average  of left and right side peak
accelerations.
Average  acceleration as represented by the slope of the filtered velocity/time curve is
commonly used  to evaluate  relative collision performance  of a structure.  Common
practice is to try to steepen the curve in the early portion of the crash sequence (up to
perhaps 50 ms) and to try to flatten the curve in the later parts. The logic has to do with
the motions of a  restrained occupant within  the  structure.  In addition,  total velocity
change,  including rebound,  is typically reviewed.  As an example,  increasing front
structure strength can increase  restitution and rebound, which  increases  the overall
change in velocity, or  Delta-V,  and  can have  adverse effects on overall occupant
performance.  While peak accelerations are useful, unfiltered peaks can be misleading
due to the noise/vibration effect, and at best represent only a partial analysis.
                                                                              106
 image: 








Body Modeling - Stiffness in Collision Simulation
In evaluating the performance of the optimized body structure, the analysts in general
considered "less deformation" of the body structure to equate to "better performance."
Less deformation may be an  index of  structural stiffness but is not necessarily an
indication of better collision performance. Less deformation generally equates  to higher
decelerations and resulting forces on the occupant.  It is likewise generally desirable to
efficiently use as much of the allowable free crush space as possible, not less.
Body Modeling - Door Opening
Part of the rear impact analysis includes an analysis of rear door opening deformation
and an estimate of door openability post-crash.  While this is an interesting and useful
analysis, it is not explained why it is done. It is not a required  aspect of the regulations.
Since it is in the report, a similar analysis should probably be done for the front door
openings in  the front crash test load cases.  Most if not all manufacturers have an in-
house requirement that front doors must be openable following a standard front crash
test.
3.2   Non-body Design Optimization

This project included  a major engineering  effort to identify practical mass reduction
opportunities in non-body component groups.  A  rigorous process was followed  to
identify  potential mass  reduction concepts.  This process selected a  extraordinary
number of technologies that were judged to be practical, cost effective and in volume
production now or  will be in production by 2017.  A few of the larger mass reduction
ideas are discussed in the following sections.

Non-body mass reduction ideas selected for the final FEV vehicle design resulted in a
21% reduction in non-body sub-group mass reduction.  A portion of the mass reduction
achieved in  this area was the result of vehicle mass reduction (engine, wheels, tires).
The majority of  non-body  mass  reductions are independent of other reductions  in
vehicle mass.
3.2.1  Suspension

      Suspension sub-system - Wheels, Tires, Shock Absorbers,
                              Steering Knuckles, Control Arms, Springs,

      Optimization results -     69 Kg mass reduction
                              $0 cost increase

      Major mass reductions in this group are:

      Wheels and Tires        32.8 Kg     Resized to new weight
      Shock absorber          14.1         New light weight design
      Front Control Arm          1.9         Convert to Aluminum
                                                                             107
 image: 








      Front and Rear Knuckle   12.6        Conversion to Cast Aluminum
      Front and Rear Sta. Bar    7.0        Innovative Al tube concept
      Other                    0.6

Wheels

Downsizing wheels and tires (5) for the 317 Kg (18.5%) reduction in total vehicle mass
is appropriate and is a normal consideration in OEM weight reduction programs. Wheel
and tire  combinations selected represent a 22% mass  reduction from the reduction for
these components.  This magnitude of mass  reduction is potentially achievable, but
must be considered somewhat aggressive.

Knuckles

Conversion of steering knuckles to cast aluminum is a proven strategy.  Estimated mass
reduction by conversion to aluminum is 38% of knuckle mass.  Approximately 35% of
knuckles on vehicles built in  North America use aluminum knuckles.  Mass reduction
achieved  in  those programs  range  from  35% to  45%  depending  on  knuckle
configuration.  Knuckle mass reduction assessment in this study is achievable.

Control Arms

Conversion of the front control arm  to forged aluminum  results  in  a vehicle mass
reduction of 2 Kg.  Baseline Venza  control arm design is typical of a design used widely
throughout the industry.   A significant proportion of these  arms are produced  in
aluminum.  Mass reduction estimates for conversion of this component is typical of the
reductions seen in similar production programs.

Shock Absorber Sway Bars

Reduced mass shock absorber/strut designs and the tubular sway  bars are innovative
concepts.   Cost reduction of $58  is attributed  to the  reduced mass  shock absorber
concept.  Production viability and cost of this ideas is not known to this reviewer.
System Cost

Total  cost for mass reductions  in this group is estimated to be net $0.  Cost savings
resulting from downsized wheels and tires ($79) and low mass shock  absorbers ($58)
offset cost increases for low mass arms, knuckles and stabilizer bars.
3.2.2  Engine

      Optimization results -     30.4 Kg mass reduction
                              $ 43.96 cost reduction
                                                                           108
 image: 








Main sources of engine mass reduction:
      Downsizing - constant performance     10.4 Kg     (2.7 L to 2.4 L)
      Cylinder Block - Al Mg Hybrid, liners     7.1
      Valve train - Al castings, power metal    3.7
      Cooling system - plastic housings       2.6
      Timing Drive - Plastic covers           1.5
      Other                                5.1

Engine - Downsizing

Largest mass (10.4 Kg) reduction came from  downsizing  the engine to  a smaller
displacement to maintaining baseline Venza performance levels. Assessing appropriate
engine weight for a downsized engine is a complex task.  Changing displacement within
a basic engine achieves small incremental mass reductions. A broader perspective was
used in this study.  Based on competitive engine technology assessments,  an  engine
was selected representing mass optimization for the 2.4 L displacement. Mass of the
new engine was adjusted based on sound engineering analysis to meet packaging and
performance  parameters of the baseline  engine-vehicle package.   This  approach
represents  an  innovative,  thorough  and  well-engineered  approach to   estimating
optimized engine mass reduction resting from vehicle mass reduction.

Developing a new  engine involves massive investments in  design, development and
manufacturing.  Production  engines are designed for use in a broad range of vehicles
and for a period of time spanning several vehicle design cycles.  Manufacturers may not
have the opportunity to provide a mass optimized  engine for a specific vehicle.

The majority of engine mass reduction ideas selected for the  FEV Venza exploit recent
advances  in  materials and/or manufacturing technologies.  Many small gains were
made converting cast  iron housings to cast aluminum, and cast aluminum covers and
brackets to cast magnesium  or  plastic.   Most  of the engine mass  reduction ideas
selected have been proven in multiple high volume applications over several years.  A
few engine Ideas have less proven high volume field experience and were identified by
FEV as "D" level selection candidates.

Cylinder Block

Cylinder block  mass  reductions  were achieved  by utilizing  a  hybrid design  with
magnesium outer jacket  die cast over an aluminum core structure.  This process is in
limited production in Europe.  Considering engineering, manufacturing and investment
issues associated with this  technology, FEV identifies this as "D" (difficult) technology
for 2017 availability.

Cylinder Liners

Parent metal (aluminum) cylinder liners  were  selected for mass reduction.    FEV
selected a  steel plasma coating process to achieve required  bore wear characteristics.
                                                                            109
 image: 








While this process has been used in low volume applications for over 10 years it has not
been  demonstrated high volume  production levels.  FEV  identifies  this as a  "D"
technology for 2017 production.
                                                                           no
 image: 








1. ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA SOURCES (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
Please comment on the validity of any data sources and assumptions embedded in
the study. Such items include material choices, technology choices, vehicle design,
crash validation testing, and cost assessment that could affect its findings.
If you find issues with data sources and assumptions, please provide suggestions for
available data that would improve the study.
COMMENTS
1) NHTSA crash test data was used for validation of collision simulation
models and is an appropriate source.
2) Material property data was supplied by recognized supplier
associations and are correct.
3) Cost estimates for reduced mass sheet products seem to include
assumption that drive unusually high material and equipment cost.
This issue leads to a technology cost effectiveness that is not
representative of actual production experience for sheet products.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
Ill
 image: 








    2.  VEHICLE DESIGN METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                           COMMENTS
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art design methods have been
employed and the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor. You are encouraged to provide comments on the information contained
within the unencrypted model provided by EDAG; the technologies chosen by FEV;
and the resulting final vehicle design.
1)  EDAG performed structural modeling. The EDAG organization is
    widely recognized as technically competent and highly experienced in
    modeling of auto body structure.  Modeling approach appears
    technically robust and logical.
2)  Body structural analysis utilized industry recognized CAE, CAD and
    collision modeling analysis tools and protocols. Tools used are state-
    of-the -art and the approach.
3)  FE model was validated against physical test data for NVH and
    collision performance. Model correlation with physical test results is
    very good.  No significant discrepancies or inconsistencies have been
    identified in the modeling results.
4)  Based on these observation, the models would be considered valid
    and reliable for moderate A:B design comparisons that are the
    subject of this vehicle study.
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the technologies and materials
selected, forming techniques, bonding processes, and parts integration.
1)  Body:  Process used to select materials, grades and gauges for the
    mass optimized body sub-group is technically sound and thorough.
    Election of laser welding of structurally significant body panels
    indicates deployment of advanced manufacturing process where
    appropriate.
2)  Non-body: Methodology used to identify, screen and select non-
    body mass reduction technologies is thorough, detailed and highly
    effective.  Munro Associates lead this segment of the project. Munro
    is recognized as being technically competent, highly experienced,
    knowledgeable and creative in benchmarking and lean engineering of
    automotive and non-automotive systems.
If you are aware of better methods employed and documented elsewhere to help
select and analyze advanced vehicle materials and design engineering rigor for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
                                                                                                                                    112
 image: 








ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The team of FEV, EDAG and Munro is an outstanding coalition of industry experts with the unique skills and expertise necessary to meet the objectives of this
project.
                                                                                                                                    113
 image: 








    3.  VEHICLE CRASHWORTHINESS TESTING METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR. (CAE
       only)
                           COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the vehicle body structure's
structural integrity (NVH, etc.) and safety crashworthiness.
1)  LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind
    of analysis. FEM analysis is part science and part art. EDAGhasthe
    experienced engineers and analysts required to generate valid
    simulation models and results.
2)  EDAG was thorough in their analysis, load-case selections and data
    for evaluation
3)  The handling of acceleration data from the crash test simulations is a
    bit unusual, and further analysis of the data is recommended.
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art crash simulation testing
methods have been employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis
exhibits strong technical rigor.
1)  CAE modeling guidelines used appear to provide a rigorous and
    logical technical approach to the development of the FE and the
    methods of analysis.
2)  Method of evaluating and comparing acceleration levels in the
    various crash test scenarios is  a bit unusual, a more accepted method
    of comparing velocity/time plots and average accelerations is
    suggested.
If you have access to FMVSS crash setups to run the model under different
scenarios in LS-DYNA, are you able to validate the FEV/EDAG design and results? In
addition, please comment on the AVI files provided.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere
to help validate advanced materials and design engineering rigor for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve the study.
Methods and tools were appropriate.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
                                                                                                                                   114
 image: 








    4.  VEHICLE MANUFACTURING COST METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR (CAE BIW and
       Vehicle)
                            COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods used to analyze the mass-reduced vehicle body
structure's manufacturing costs.
Body structure mass optimization was conducted by EDAG. Body
structure was not altered form the baseline structure. Mass optimization
process examined an appropriate range of material types, grades and
gauges. Material properties used appear valid for the respective
materials and grades. NVH and collision performance results appear
consistent and logical with no significant dis-continuities of
inconsistencies. In general the process used is excellent and the results
appear realistic and valid.
Please describe the extent to which state-of-the-art costing methods have been
employed as well as the extent to which the associated analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.
Costing models are thorough covering all elements of total production
cost (material, processing, equipment, tooling, freight, packaging,...).
Baseline cost model was calibrated to baseline vehicle cost projection.
The basic model is complete and sound.

Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are the result of a
rigorous engineering process utilizing benchmarking data, material and
component costs from suppliers and detailed analysis of manufacturing
costs. Sound creative engineering analysis was used to scale product cost
to this specific vehicle application.  Accuracy of new technology cost
estimates is dependent on the knowledge, skill, experience and
engineering judgment of the individuals making the estimates. Munro
Associates conducted this segment of the project.  Munro is a highly
respected organization with strong qualifications in product cost  analysis.
It is reasonable to assume cost estimates in this study are valid estimates
for the mass reduction technologies.

One area of cost estimate concern is reduced mass sheet products. In
this area, material and equipment costs attributed to the reduced mass
technologies are significantly higher than actual production experience
would support. Source of the discrepancy  is not clear form the
                                                                                                                                     115
 image: 








                                                                          information in the project review documents.
If you are aware of better methods and tools employed and documented elsewhere
to help estimate costs for advanced vehicle materials and design for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how they might be used to improve this study.
Process methodology and execution used is one of the best this reviewer
has seen.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

A review of cost development for reduced mass sheet product should be reviewed.  Current model would lead to de-selecting some low mass sheet based
solutions due to unrepresentative cost assessment.
                                                                                                                                116
 image: 








5. CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS
Are the study's conclusions adequately backed up by the methods and analytical
rigor of the study?
Are the conclusions about the design, development, validation, and cost of the
mass-reduced design valid?
Are you aware of other available research that better evaluates and validates the
technical potential for mass-reduced vehicles in the 2017-2020 timeframe?
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
COMMENTS
Study conclusions and findings are well supported by the analytical rigor,
tools used and expertise of the organizations involved.
Design development and validation conclusions are well supported in this
study. Cost model is valid and cost conclusions are generally realistic.
There appears to be a systematic discrepancy in cost modeling of low
mass sheet products. This discrepancy has a minor impact on conclusions
of this study.
This reviewer has monitored automotive mass reduction studies in North
America and Europe for several years. This study is the best evaluation of
mass reduction opportunities and associated costs this reviewer has
seen.

117
 image: 








    6.  OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMMENT
                            COMMENTS
Has the study made substantial improvements over previous available works in the
ability to understand the feasibility of 2017-2020 mass-reduction technology for
light-duty vehicles? If so, please describe.
Yes.  Overall objectives) of the project (20% mass reduction, less than
10% cost increase) are timely and consistent with industry interests in the
short term.

Retaining the OEM designed and field proven body structure eliminates
uncertainty related to evaluation of novel and un-proven structures. This
analysis clearly identifies body mass reduction achievable with new and
near term future grades of HSS and AHSS.

An exhaustive list of non-body mass reduction concepts are evaluated in
this study. Some of these technologies are well known and understood in
the industry, other are new, creative and innovative.  Each technology is
reviewed from an engineering and cost perspective and scaled to the
specific application.  The technology selection process was analytical,
rigorous and un-biased.  Majority of technologies selected are
appropriate for the mass reduction and cost objectives of the project.
This  information provides helpful  information to industry engineers
considering mass reduction alternatives for other vehicle programs.
Do the study design concepts have critical deficiencies in its applicability for 2017-
2020 mass-reduction feasibility for which revisions should be made before the
report is finalized?  If so, please describe.
Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by
2017-20.

Two technologies selected for inclusion in the final vehicle concept
appear "speculative" for 2017-20, Co-cast magnesium/aluminum block
and MMC brake rotors. Both technologies are identified as "D" level for
implementation.

Designing, developing and establishing production capacity for a  new
engine block is a time consuming and costly process.  Investments would
be required by OEM manufactures and casting suppliers. It is not clear
the level of human resources and capital investment required for this
                                                                                                                                     118
 image: 









Are there fundamentally different lightweight vehicle design technologies that you
expect to be much more common (either in addition to or instead of) than the one
Lotus has assessed for the 2017-2020 timeframe (Low Development)?
Are there any other areas outside of the direct scope of the analysis (e.g., vehicle
performance, durability, drive ability, noise, vibration, and hardness) for which the
mass-reduced vehicle design is likely to exhibit any compromise from the baseline
vehicle?
technology could be justified the basis of the mass reduction potential of
(7 Kg).
Aluminum MMC brake rotors were selected for inclusion in the final
vehicle configuration. In the judgment of this reviewer, this technology is
the most speculative technology selected for the final vehicle
configuration. MMC rotors have been in development for over 25 years.
Development experience with these rotors has generally not been
acceptable for typical customer service. The minimum mass MMC rotor
design selected in this project is a radical (by automotive standards) multi
piece bolted composite design with an MMC rotor disc. This design is
identified as a "D" rated technology and a mass savings of 9 Kg. The
aluminum MMC portion of the mas reduced rotor assembly would be
regarded as "speculative" at this time.
Cost models used to assess low mass sheet product may have some
questionable assumptions. For this project, adjustment in the cost model
is unlikely to influence he material selection process. Correction in this
area would have a greater impact on technology screening and selection
to achieve mass reductions above 20%.
No. The result of his study is a logical and cost effective advancement in
the development of more efficient passenger vehicles for the 2017-20
timeframe.
None identified by this reviewer.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
119
 image: 








Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis -
Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)


simunovics @ornl.gov


Summary

This document is a review of the reports, computational models and simulations by the FEV
and its contractors on the design of a lightweight midsize crossover utility vehicle. The FEV
study is an extension of the previous study titled "An Assessment of Mass Reduction
Opportunities for a 2017 - 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program" (Lotus Phase 1 Study}.
Starting from the research findings and the vehicle used in that study, FEV engineers have
developed a lightweight vehicle concept that utilizes designs, materials and manufacturing
processes that are regarded to be technologically and commercially feasible for the 2017-
2020 car model year. This design is termed as the "Low Development" concept as it
assumes that the technologies needed for this design are sufficiently mature and that they
not encompass any unresolved fundamental technology barriers. Overall, the main
developments and general findings of the FEV study are sound when viewed from the
perspective of crashworthiness modeling and the underlying formulations and practices
employed. However, I have identified several issues with the developed models that in my
opinion have to be addressed before the final conclusions  and the models are released into
the open domain. Given the scrutiny that the study and the vehicle models are expected to
undergo after they are released to the general public, it is important that these issues are
resolved as much as possible so that they do not distract from otherwise sound technical
results.
1.

This document provides expert review of the 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-
Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report}. The FEV
Study study builds on the previous 2010 Lotus project [1] that developed two lightweight
conceptual designs of the existing vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza. The first design, referred to
as the "Low Development" vehicle, was based on the materials and technologies that were
deemed feasible for 2017 production. Its estimated reduction in mass compared to the
baseline production vehicle was 21%.

The FEV study under review documents the design process with a goal of 20% mass
reduction corresponding to the Low Development (LD} case ("20%"} as specified in the
Lotus Engineering Phase 1 study.  The weight reduction is pursued through analysis of the
Body-in-White (BIW}, and through an up-to-date re-analysis of light weighting options for
all of the other vehicle components. The FEV study includes an in-depth cost assessment of
all the light weighting technologies. However, this subject matter is not in my core
                                                                             120
 image: 








expertise area, so that I have not attempted a comprehensive review, except for few
general opinions that were a result of engineering intuition.

The FEV study consists of two parts: In the first part, FEV's contractor, design and
engineering company EDAG, has designed and developed a reduced-weight BIW structure
using computer Aided Engineering (CAE}. The objective was to demonstrate that a
lightweight design modification of an existing vehicle has a strong potential to meet the
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS] for Light-Duty Vehicles. The study was
conducted in the virtual domain, using the Finite Element Method (FEM} [2,3]
computational tools. The BIW models were  developed using the state-of-the-art
measurement and CAE tools. The simulations were conducted using computer codes MSC
NASTRAN and LS-DYNA [4].  The research and development investigated application of
new high-strength materials, new manufacturing and assembly methods for the BIW as it
provides most potential for vehicle weight reduction. The second part of the report is an in-
depth investigation and design of lightweight "other than BIW" vehicle systems. The
resulting design is based upon discussions with suppliers, Lotus Phase 1 report ideas, and
FEV's experience and expertise in the subject matter.

In this document I review the methods, data, and the FEM crash models developed in the
FEV study. The models were evaluated based on the analysis of the computational
simulation results and on based on the analysis of the actual model files. I want to
emphasize that the scope of my review is on the computational simulations of the vehicle
crashworthiness and on the modeling approaches employed by the  FEV and its contractors.
The primary source for my review were the FEV final draft report, the crash animations
generated by the FEV, and the computer simulation output files for the NCAP and the ODB
crash test configurations. Two vehicle crash models were available, the baseline and the LD
model. As it will be shown in the following sections, my review was  based to a large extent
on the vehicle model files. Very often in the  current practice, the actual model files are not
sufficiently scrutinized and are evaluated only through the resulting computational
simulations. In the case of large complex FEM models, such as car crash models, the
model's configuration complexity and its shear size can obscure the important details of
the response and camouflage the sources of errors in the  model. That is particularly
common when the technology envelope of the state-of-the-art is expanded, as is the case
with ever-increasing sizes and complexities of the car crash models.
2. Methodology of the Review

The review of the 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis
- Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle was conducted in order to provide specific opinions on
the following aspects of the study as charged by the EPA: (1} assumptions and data
sources; (2} vehicle design methodological rigor; (3} vehicle crashworthiness testing
methodological rigor-CAE only; (4} vehicle manufacturing cost methodological rigor; (5}
conclusion and findings; and (6} other comments. Each of the subjects is further split into
sub-topics as needed. As noted above, I do not extensively  comment on item (4}  as it is not
                                                                              121
 image: 








in my field of expertise. The following sections follow the outline of the EPA charge
questions.


3. Assumptions and Data Sources

This section contains comments on validity of the data sources, material properties, and
modeling approaches used in this study. The overall methodology used by the FEV is
fundamentally solid and adhere to standard practices of the crashworthiness engineering
[5]. However, an in-depth analysis of the model files reveals several areas that may need to
be addressed to fully support the findings of the study.

Firstly, as a matter of the established procedures for technical documentation, I suggest
that the sources for the material properties should be clearly referenced; especially since
the authors of the FEV study worked on similar projects for steel industry consortia [6].
Similar projects on concept vehicles [7,8] also offer guidelines on the reporting. It would
also be very helpful to readers to graphically depict mechanical properties such as material
stress-strain curves, failure envelopes, etc.

Secondly, the technologically important issues with the high strength metallic materials,
such as Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS] [9], are their special processing
requirements [10], reduction in ductility, higher possibility of fracture [11-14] (especially
under high strain rates [15-17]}, and joining [18-22]. Many AHSSs derive their superior
mechanical properties from their tailored microstructures, which get strongly affected
during welding. Active research in welding of the AHSS shows possibilities of significant
reductions of the joint strengths due to the softening processes in Heat Affected Zone
(HAZ). Therefore, the strength values for the welds in the current LD model (i.e. SIGY=1550
for MAT_SPOTWELD section in the input files] seems very optimistic, and may need to be
reduced or elaborated upon in the report. Several versions of the reports were distributed
and I may have very well missed an updated version. In case that joining discussion is
indeed restricted to  one page as it appears in the current FEV document, I would suggest
that weld properties and constitutive models be given additional attention in the final
report.

Third important issue that I would suggest to be addressed is modeling of failure/fracture
of the high strength materials in the LD models. Despite long research on the subject, the
methods for modeling localization and failure are relatively scarce. There is still no wide
consensus on how to model failure in materials. For the FEV study, special attention should
be given to the joint areas (spot welds, laser welds] that can experience the degradation of
properties due to the thermo-mechanical cycles that they have been exposed to. A simple
way of addressing the above points would  be to use failure limit strains in plasticity models
that are used in the FEV models, i.e MAT_PIECEWISELINEAR_PLASTICITY. In this approach
a limit strain is assigned to material, and after that limit strain is reached in a finite
element, the element is gradually removed from the simulation. The values for the failure
strains are dependent on mesh and element discretization, where additional simulations
                                                                               122
 image: 








should be conducted to correlate energy to failure to the corresponding physical failure
process zone for the given problem.
4. Vehicle Design Methodological Rigor

The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with the development of the
baseline FEM model of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a reverse engineering
process of disassembly, geometry scanning, component analysis, material characterization
and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for this process by the
FEV is quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the
definition of joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell
elements, with few triangular elements.  The mesh density is mostly uniform and without
large variations in the FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios. The BIW model has about
6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal which is a very small amount given the
complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety
for the  baseline vehicle model.
   Figure 1. Baseline Vehicle Model and Expanded Parts. Colors denote different parts.
                                                                             123
 image: 








         Figure 2. Baseline Body in White Model. Colors denote different parts.
     Figure 3. Baseline Vehicle, Unsprung Components. Colors denote different parts.
There are no apparent geometry conflicts in the model and parts are well aligned with
compatible geometries and FEM meshes. This is essential for accurate modeling of
currently the prevailing joining method for sheet metals, spot welding. The level of
geometrical detail in the model is very high and as someone who has been involved with
the vehicle crashworthiness modeling for the last twenty years, I think that the developed
FEM mesh of the Venza BIW is the current state-of-the-art. Figure 4 shows some details of
the BIW FEM mesh that illustrate the prevalence of the quadrilateral shell finite elements,
constant aspect ratios and presence of the geometry details that are necessary for an
adequate modeling of the progressive structural crush.
                                                                              124
 image: 








                            Bi
                         Figure 4. Mesh Detail and Quality.
In the following, I first give the analysis of the baseline FEM model. The baseline FEM
model is very adept and can be used for illustration of some shortcomings of the LD model
that I think need to be addressed. It is important to note that the LD model is much more
complex due to a large number of materials and gages that resulted from the computational
optimization process. This complexity and the project time constraints dramatically
increase the potential for error. Unfortunately the tools for managing such complex
systems are not yet mature, making the development and the evaluation of this complex
vehicle model very challenging. Over the years, I have developed several simple programs
that can be used to debug FEM models by directly analyzing the model files. The common
approach to evaluation of large FEM models is to almost exclusively consider
computational simulation results. However, these simple tools allow for evaluations  of
relationships within the FEM models directly from the model input files, thereby enabling
debugging of the models independently from the simulations.

Review of the FEM Model for the Baseline Toyota Venza

The primary material for the BIW of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, was
identified in the Lotus Phase 1 Report as mild steel. Lotus Phase 1 study stated that the BIW
also had about 8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa designation, while everything else was
commonly used mild steel sheet material. The FEV/EDAG study showed that there was
more variety to the baseline design then originally anticipated. Table 1 lists the materials
used in the BIW model (file Venza_biw_r006.k] that were modeled using
MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY). Aluminum bumper was modeled using
MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK material model in LS-DYNA. The number of material
models is relatively small.
          Table 1. Baseline Model, Piecewise Linear Plasticity Material Models.
  Material ID
Load Curve ID
Material Title in Model
                                                                             125
 image: 








10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10010
10011
10012
10013
10019
10022
10023
10024
10025
10027
10028
10029
25203
27001
4100001
4100002
4100004
100017
100034
100167
280090
280090
100143
100200
100101
100500
100300
1000700
100600
0
0
31
108
109
100233
55028
55000
1012
27001
0
0
0
MILD 140-270
DP 350-600
BH 210-340
BH 260-370
BH 280-400
HSLA 350-450
HSLA 490-600
HF 1050-1500
Q&T5160523MPA
SF 570/640
DP 700-1000
MS 1250-1500
Fuel tank strap
Radiator fan module
Exhaust















Exhaust pipe Steel-25KSI
Exhaust muffler STEEL 120KSI
DP 500-800
MS 950-1200
HF1300
Al_alloy_wheel




Windshield_Backlite_Glass
Steel-coil spring
Steel_suspension-hight
steel-lingage 273 Mpa

strength

Most of the CAE tools display the FEM model based on their part identification number
(ID}. To verify the material model assignment one must then verify material assignment for
every part and then sort them accordingly. For large complex models this is a very tedious
process that is very error prone. More advanced CAE tools, such as HyperMesh, have
options for grouping and displaying model entities by material types and IDs. Figure 5
displays the material assignments for the baseline BIW.
                                                                             126
 image: 








          Figure 5. BIW Baseline Model. Colors denote different sheet materials.
The specific assignment of the materials for the BIW and the corresponding stress-strain
curves are shown in the figures below. Most of the material models account for strain rate
sensitivity of the material. For a given plastic strain, the yield stress is calculated by
interpolating stresses between two neighboring stress strain curves based on the applied
strain rate. There are established modeling recommendations for modeling strain rate
sensitivity effect in crash models. The specified stress strain curves should not intersect.
Extrapolated lines from their last specified linear segment should not intersect, as well. The
material models should use plastic strain rate [23] instead of the total strain rate as the
basis of the strain rate effect calculation. This option (VP=1) was not used in the FEV
models although it is highly recommended in practice.

Figures 6-10 show the main material systems for the baseline BIW model. The material
assignments correspond to the assignments in the project's report.
                                                               IF148-278 uith SK 8.881/5 •
                                                                IF140-278 uith 3R . I/sec •
                                                                  i-a/d Hith 5R 58/sec •
                                                               IF148-278 Hith SR 106/sec -
                                                               IF148-S78 uith SR 6088/sec
                                                .1    8.15    8.2    8.25   8.3    8.35   8.1
                                                                                   127
 image: 








Figure 6. Material ID 10001, Table ID 100017.
                                               BP358-68B uith SR .885/sec •
                                                 DP350-G80 uith SR .I/sec •
                                                 DP350-BBO with 5R IB/sec •
                                                BP35B-6BB Kith !
                                                DP35B-6BB "Mi. SR 588'sfir
                                     B.I         B.15
                                    Plastic Strain [L/L]
Figure 7. Material ID 10002, Table ID 100034.
                                                      uith SR ,8B5/sec
                                                  358-458 uith SR . I/sec
                                               HSLH=58-450 uit
                                               K_L..35B-"l5BHittr5R IBB/sec
                                                          SR 588/sec
                                                      uith SR 1888/seo
                                 8.1       8.15

                                    Plastic Strain [L/L]
Figure 8. Material ID 10006, Table ID 100143.
                                                                             128
 image: 








                                                       10201, HSLR438-688 tilth SR B.HB4/sec
                                                         10202, HSLR49G-688 'r'th SR I/sec
                                                         18233, HSLfl498-Ca8 with SR 10/sec
                                                        .1.020-1, HS'.r^MO-GOO with SR 100/sec
                                                        10205, HSLH490-600 Hith SR 250/sec
                                           .82  8.83   8.01  8.05   8.06  8.07

                                                    Plastic Strain [L/Ll
                      Figure 9. Material ID 10007, Table ID 100200.
                                                    B.4   B.5   B.G
                                                    Plastic Strain [L/L]
                     Figure 10. Material ID 10012, Table ID 1000700.

The stress-strain curves for different strain rates in the above figures do not intersect.
Their extrapolations however have potential for intersection at high plastic strains in
Figures 7and 8. The number of the data points in Figures 9 and 10 are too large and needs
to be reduced in order to avoid the interpolation errors by the simulation program.  It is
obvious that curves in Figures 9 and 10 were developed by analytical fits. Such approach
can create undesirable artifacts such as an appearance of the yield point elongation for
Dual Phase steel in Figure 10. An interpolation approach with fewer points and curves is
recommended. Figure 11 illustrates the optimal piecewise linear interpolation (green
curve] of the base (red] curve in Figure 10. The interpolated curve has error of 1% of the
value range with respect to the actual curve and uses only 9 points.
                                                                                     129
 image: 








                        .1   a.2   a.3   a,<t   e.s   a.6   a.7   e.s   e.s
 Figure 11. Optimal Linear Piecewise Approximation (tolerance is 1% value range] of the
                             Lowest Curve in Figure 10..

Next, the BIW sheet material thickness distribution is shown in Figure 12. The colors
indicate symmetrical distributions in accordance with the specified thickness distribution
in the project report.
              Figure 12. Baseline Model. Colors denote material thickness.

In many situations, the accuracy of the crash simulation is dependent on the shell element
formulation (type] used. The basic shell element formulation (reduced integration
Belytschko-Tsay, LS-DYNA type 2} is computationally very efficient but has lower accuracy
than more complex formulations such as the fully-integrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element
                                                                               130
 image: 








(LS-DYNA type 16}. Figure 12 shows the shell element formulations in the BIW model. The
current crash modeling recommendation is to use shell element type 16 when possible. The
Bathe-Dvorkin shell is 3.5 times more computationally expensive than the Belytschko-Tsay
shell so that in order to strike a proper balance between the accuracy and the
computational speed element types can be mized in the model. This is especially true when
large number of simulations is conducted, as was the case for computational optimization
in the FEV study. As it can be seen in Figure 16, the baseline model employs accurate
element formulation in the main structural components, while the Belytschko-Tsay
formulation is employed in the remainder of the sheet metal which is an appropriate
compromise for the large scale computations.
 Figure 12. Baseline Model. Shell Element Formulation, Belytshcko-Tsay (red, ELFORM=2)
                      and Bathe-Dvorkin (green, ELFORM=16).
Another important technical aspect of the crash simulations with the shell elements is the
employed number of integration points through the thickness of the shells. The default (2
points] is insufficient for the crash analyses. Three points is also inadequate in the current
simulation guidelines because it results in a very quick formation of plastic hinges in the
sheet metal during crush. A minimum of 5 through-thickness integration points is currently
recommended for the crash simulations. Therefore, modification of the model in this
regard is suggested for the general release.
                                                                             131
 image: 








 Figure 13. Baseline Model. Shell element through thickness integration points, 3 (red] and
                                   5 (green}.

Another commonly overlooked formulation aspect for the shell elements is the through
thickness shear factor. Recommended value is 0.833, which was used only in bumper
structures of the current model (Figure 14}. Changing the factor to 0.833 is recommended.

            Figure 14. Baseline Model. Shear Factor, 1 (green}, 0.833 (red}.
In summary, the baseline Venza FEM model is developed following most of the
recommended development procedures for crash models. The modifications suggested
above would meet few additional recommendations that would likely increase the
robustness of the model.. The NCAP and the side MDB barrier simulation results can be
compared with the actual crash tests conducted by NHTSA. The comparison of the
simulation and the NCAP test shows somewhat stiffer response of the FEM model with
respect to the test (Figure 1.18.18 in the last FEV report}. The maximum and the average
accelerations in the FEM model were accordingly higher than the test results. The baseline
FEM model was deemed acceptable for the purposes of the FEV study. Another important
measure of the FEM model fidelity was the crash duration time that was 20 ms shorter for
                                                                            132
 image: 








the model compared to the test. This difference is noticeable because the overall crash
duration of 100 milliseconds. However, for the objectives of the FEM study, the model's
crash pulse was deemed acceptable, which for the described project schedule seemed quite
reasonable.

Review of the Low Development Vehicle Model

The FEV engineers have used the computational optimization methods based on the
response surface formulation in order to determine the distribution of material types and
grades that would maximally reduce the weight of the vehicle while maintaining the
performance and controlling the cost. The part distribution of the resulting optimized LD
design FEM model is shown in Figure 15.
        Figure 15. Low Development Design Model. Colors denote different parts.

It is probably misleading to refer to the resulting FEM model as "Low Development" since it
is a product of numerous computational simulations and an in-depth engineering study.
The resulting inventory of the material models used in the LD FEM model is listed in Table
2. It is evident that there are numerous duplicates as well as unused materials. It would be
prudent to purge the list of material models from the LD FEM model as they may lead to
errors. Some of the inconsistencies that were found in the current LD FEM model may very
well be a result of this model redundancy.

Two model files contain most of the material models:
   •  Venza_master_mat_list_r006.k
   •  Venza_Material_Db_Opt_dk2.k
The horizontal  black line in Table 2 separates the material model specifications between
the two files. These two were unchanged for the last two versions of the FEM models that
were downloaded from the project download site.

      Table 2. Low Development Model, Piecewise Linear Plasticity Material Models.
                                                                             133
 image: 








Material ID
10001
10002
10003
10004
10005
10006
10007
10008
10010
10011
10012
10013
10019
10022
10024
10025
10027
10028
10029
15203
25203
27001
110001
110002
110003
110004
110005
110007
110008
110010
110011
110012
110027
110028
110029
127001
210001
210004
210006
210007
210010
Load Curve ID
100017
100034
100167
280090
280090
100143
100200
100101
100500
100300
1000700
100600
0
0
108
109
100233
55028
55000
1012
1012
27001
100017
100034
100167
280090
280090
100200
100101
100500
100300
1000700
100233
55028
55000
27001
100017
280090
100143
100200
100500
Material Name
MILD 140-270
DP 350-600
BH 210-340
BH 260-370
BH 280-400
HSLA 350-450
HSLA 490-600
HF 1050-1500
Q&T5160523MPA
SF 570/640
DP 700-1000
MS 1250-1500
Fuel tank strap
Radiator fan module
Exhaust pipe Steel-25KSI
Exhaust muffler STEEL 120KSI
DP 500-800
MS 950-1200
HF1300
Al_alloy_wheel
Al_alloy_wheel
Windshield_Backlite_Glass
MILD 140-270 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
DP 350-600
BH 210-340 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
BH 260-370
BH 280-400
HSLA 490-600 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
HF 1050-1500
Q&T5160523MPA
SF 570/640
DP 700-1000
DP 500-800
MS 950-1200
HF1300
Windshield_Backlite_Glass
MILD 140-270 : 20%down
BH 260-370
HSLA 350-450 : 20%down
HSLA 490-600 :20%down
Q&T 5160 523MPA : 20%down
134
 image: 








Material ID
210011
210023
210024
210025
310001
310003
310004
310005
310006
310007

310010
310011
310013
310022
325203
410001
410003
410005
510001
610001
710001
710002
810001
810002
810006
810007
810012
910012
4100001
4100002
4100004
14100001
14100002
14100004
1
2
3
4
5
6
Load Curve ID
100300
31
108
109
100017
100167
280090
280090
100143
100200

100500
100300
100600
0
1012
100017
100167
280090
100017
100017
100017
100034
100017
100034
100143
100200
1000700
1000700
0
0
0
0
0
0
10000101
10000228
10000139
10000177
10000177
10000049
Material Name
SF 570/640 : 20%down
Exhaust
Exhaust pipe Steel-25KSI
Exhaust muffler STEEL 120KSI
MILD 140-270 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
BH 210-340 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
BH 260-370 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
BH 280-400 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
HSLA 350-450 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
HSLA 490-600 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
Q&T 5160 523MPA : ORIGINAL
DENSITY
SF 570/640 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
MS 1250-1500 : ORIGINAL DENSITY
Radiator fan module
Al_alloy_wheel
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
BH 210-340 : FOR_ITER_201_03
BH 280-400 : FOR_ITER_201_03
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
DP 350-600 : FOR_ITER_201_03
MILD 140-270 : FOR_ITER_201_03
DP 350-600 : FOR_ITER_201_03
HSLA 350-450 : FOR_ITER_201_03
HSLA 490-600 : FOR_ITER_201_03
DP 700-1000 : FOR_ITER_201_03
DP 700-1000 : FOR_ITER_201_03
Steel-coil spring
Steel_suspension-high strength
steel-lingage 273 Mpa
Steel-coil spring
Steel_suspension-high strength
steel-lingage 273 Mpa
MILD 140/270
IF140/270
BH 210/340
BH 260/370
BH 280/400
DP300/500
135
 image: 








Material ID
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
700010
8000006
8000007
8000008
Load Curve ID
10000132
10000107
10000183
10000036
10000144
10000084
10000150
0
10000156
10000114
10000200
10000207
10000077
10000187
10000208
10000126
10000078
10000164
10000163
10000076
10000036
29
28
29
Material Name
HSLA 350/450
DP 350/600
HSLA 420/500
FB 450/600
HSLA 490/600
TWIP 500/980
DP 500/800
HSLA 550/650
SF 570/640
TRIP 600/980
DP 700/1000
CP 800/1000
MS 950/1200
CP 1000/1200
CP 1050/1470
HF 1050-1500
MS 1150-1400
MS 1250-1500
Q&T5160523MPA
HF1300
FB 450/600 : FOR_ITER_201_03
AL_aa5182_novelis
AL_AA6451_Novelis
Magnesium_MG60
Figures 16-32 below show the stress-strain curves for the materials used in the BIW of the
LD FEM model.
                                                                              136
 image: 








                                     IF148-278 with SR B.881/S
                                      IF14B-278 Mith SR .I/sec
                                                  SR 50/sec
                                     IF148-278 Hith SR IBB/sec
                                    IF14B-27B with SR 68B8/sec
     8.85
             8.1
                     8.15     8.2      8.25
                       Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                              8.3
                                                      8.35
                                                               8.1
Figure 16. Material ID 10001, Table ID 100017.
                                    DP358-68B uith SR .BBS/sec —I—
                                      DP35B-6BB Hith SR .I/sec   X
                                      DP358-688 Hith SR IB/sec —*—
                                     BP358-6B8 HithSJ^JLUHf i.0** D
                                     BP358-6B8jl**lfSR 588 'sr.r
           8.B5
                        B.I           8.15
                       Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                  B.2
                                                               8.25
Figure 17. Material ID 10002, Table ID 100034.
                                                                                137
 image: 








                                                  DEFIHE.CURVE.1B95
                                                  DEFIHE.CURVE.ie96
                                                  DEFINE.CURVE.l
                                                  DEFINE.
r-,  17BB
                               0.1           0,6
                              Plastic Strain [L/L]
        Figure 18. Material ID 10008, Table ID 100101.
   658
                                                   uith SR  .BBS/se
                                             LFI35B-'I5B uith SR .1/se
                                           HSLH°58-45B Hith i
                                          HSLH359-150 Hith SR 5BB/EB
                                                 5B uith SR IBBB/se
               B.B5
                           B.I
                                     8.15
                                                B.2
                                                          8.25
                                                                     8.3
                              Plastic Strain [L/L]
          Figure 19. Material 10006, Table ID 100143.
                                                                                     138
 image: 








„  558 -
             8.05
                      B.I
                             8.15      8.2      8.25
                               Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                      8.3
                                                              8.35
                                                                      8.1
          Figure 20. Material 10003, Table ID  100167.
                                    1B201, HSLB49B-600 uith SR Q.B04/sec
                                       10282, H3LH-190-600 "til SR I/sec
                                      1B2B3, HSLfl19B-EaU Hith SR IB/sec
                                     10284, HSI..1H9B-6B8 Hith SR IBB/sec
                                     1B2H5, riSLH498-6B8 uith SR 258/sec
   758
           B.B1
                  8.B2
                         0.03   U.04
                                     B.B5
                                            0.00   0.07
                                                               8.89
                                                                      8.1
                               Plastic Strain [L/L]
        Figure 21. Material ID 10007, Table ID 100200.
                                                                                       139
 image: 








                                                DP7BB-1BBB 8.8B5/S
                                                  DP780-1080 B.l/s
                                                  np'B! -i-Ub IB./s
                                                 Di-700-ioeo IBO./S
                                                  70B-100B 5B8./S
I
8
I
                  0,05
                              B.I         B.15

                             Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                       8.2
                                                                   B.25
        Figure 22. Material ID 10027, Table ID 100233.
   16BB i-
                                                DP7BB-1008 B.BOl/s
                                                  up/ua-ioua B.I/S
                                                   BP78B-1BBB
                             Plastic Strain [L/L]
       Figure 23. Material ID 10012, Table ID 1000700.
                                                                                   140
 image: 








0.9
0.3
B.5
B.4
1180 i-
          0,05
                  B.I
                         B.15     8.2     B.25
                          Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                 B.3
                                                         B.35
                                                                 0.4
       Figure 24. Material ID 6, Table ID 10000049.
                                       DP35B-BBB uith SR .BBS/sec
                                         DP35B-6Be nith SR .I/sec
                                         DP35B-6BO uith SR IB/sec
                                        DP35B-60B Hit
               B.B5
                            B.I          8.15
                           Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                    0.2
                                                                8.25
       Figure 25. Material ID 8, Table ID 10000107.
                                                                                 141
 image: 








                                                 DEFIHE.CURVE.1B95
                                                 DEFIHE.CURVE.ie96
                                                 DEFINE.CURVE.l
                                                 DEFINE.
r-,  17BB
                               0.1          0,6

                              Plastic Strain [L/L]
          Figure 26. Material 22, Table ID 10000126.
   BBS
                                                a uith SR .BB5/S
                                            LH35B-45B Hith SR ,1/s
                                          HSLfl"5B-15fl
               0.05
                          B.I        B.15        8.2

                             Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                         B.25
                                                                   0.3
          Figure 27. Material ID 7, Table ID 10000132
                                                                                    142
 image: 








„  558 -
             8.05
                     B.I
                            8.15     8.2     8.25
                             Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                    8.3
                                                           8.35
                                                                    8.1
         Figure 28. Material ID 3, Table ID 10000139.
   12BB i-
                                                Dpyee-ieee e.ees/s
                                                  UP70B-1UUU B.l/s
                                                  np'e: -i_6b 18./s
                                                 DK7BB-188B 188./s
                                                   788-1888 588./s
                  8.05
                               8.1          8.15

                              Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                       0.2
                                                                   0.25
              Figure 29. Material ID 13,10000150.
                                                                                    143
 image: 








558
                                              HSLH 128/580 87.8/s
                                             H5LH 120/380 218.8/s
                                            HSLH420/50G 526.6B9/
          02    0.01   0.06    0.88   0.1   0.12    8.11   0.16   0.18   8.2
                           Plastic Strain [L/L]
            Figure 30. Material ID 9, 10000183.
                             0.06      0.08      B.l
                           Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                         0.12      0.14
                  Figure 31. Material ID 14.
                                                                                   144
 image: 








             rn 5BB '
                           8.85
                                     8.1        8.15

                                    Plastic Strain [L/L]
                                                        B.2
                                                                  8.25
                    Figure 32. Material ID 8000006, Curve ID 29.
There are obvious duplicates in the model specifications that would be prudent to
eliminate and modify the model accordingly before its public release. In addition, there are
some errors in the LD FEM model specifications that need to be corrected.

Correction Item 1:

Material ID 9 (Figure 30} has stress-strain curves for different strain rates different strain
rate curves intersect which is not acceptable from the physical perspective.

Materials with IDs 8000006, 8000007, and 8000008 have elastic properties of lightweight
materials such as Aluminum and Magnesium alloys, but they utilize yield stress functions of
HSLA 350/450 steel defined in file: Venza_frt_susp_exhaust_30ms.k.
Currently, only the material 8000006 is used in the LD FEM model, although in the
previous model version material ID 8000008 was also used.
Correction Item 2:

Some material assignments in the LD FEM model are inconsistent which is probably a
result of too many material models. The mapping of material IDs on the BIW FEM model
reveal several unsymmetrical model assignments. The most obvious discrepancy is marked
in Figure 33. Here, where one model part is modeled using the mild steel while its
corresponding symmetrical counterpart is modeled using the HSLA 350/450 steel.
                                                                               145
 image: 








   Figure 33. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
 point to part 12151 (material ID 1006 - HSLA 350/450} and part 12101 (material ID 1001
                                  -Mild Steel}.

Additional unsymmetrical material assignments are pointed with arrows in Figures 34-37.
   Figure 34. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
              point to parts with unsymmetrical material ID assignments.
                                                                            146
 image: 








   Figure 35. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
              point to parts with unsymmetrical material ID assignments..

Two possible outcomes of not pairing the symmetrical components with the same material
ID are illustrated in Figures 36-37. In Figure 36 the two different parts have different
material assignments, which eventually refer to different material properties. In case of the
marked parts in Figure 37, the material IDs are different but because of the repeated
material models with different IDs, they eventually refer to the same material properties.
                                                                               147
 image: 








   Figure 36. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
   point to part 17313 (material ID 8 - DP 350/600} and part 17363 (material ID 6 - DP
                                   300/500}.
   Figure 37. Low Development Model. Colors denote different material models. Arrows
 point to part 11710 (material ID 10006 - HSLA 350-450} and part 11760 (material ID 7 -
                                 HSLA 350/450}.

The above inconsistencies need to be corrected before the models are released into to the
open domain.

Correction Item 3:

Another area of concern is the number of through thickness integration points for the shell
elements in the current LD FEM model. As it can be seen in Figure 38, almost all shell
elements have just 2 integration points through the thickness. This is clearly inadequate
from the accuracy standpoint and may be responsible for some of the issuable simulation
results shown in the following figures.
                                                                             148
 image: 








     Figure 38. Low Development Model. Colors denote number of through thickness
              integration points in shells, 2 (red], 3 (green] and 5 (yellow}.
Correction Item 4:

Figure 38 shows the thickness distribution in the LD FEM model of the BIW. In general, the
thickness distribution is symmetrical with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. However,
a closer inspection reveals some asymmetries in thickness assignments.
   Figure 39. Low Development Model. Colors denote thickness of the sheet materials.
                                                                              149
 image: 








The arrows in Figures 40-41 show the parts that do not have symmetrical assignment of
the values with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. I have not checked the extent of the
differences, but it something nonetheless that needs to be corrected.
   Figure 40. Low Development Model. Colors denote thickness of the sheet materials.
                Arrows point to unsymmetrical thickness assignments.
   Figure 41. Low Development Model. Colors denote thickness of the sheet materials.
                Arrows point to unsymmetrical thickness assignments.
                                                                             150
 image: 








Concern Item 1:

The following Figures 42-45 show some results that may warrant more investigation by
the project engineers. Figures 42-43 show the deformation of the main front rails for the
baseline vehicle during the NCAP test simulation. The overall deformation is symmetrical.
In the case of the LD FEM model, as shown in Figures 44-45, the deformation is markedly
different from the baseline and unsymmetrical. The cause for that may be in the
unsymmetrical material assignments for the main rails that were present in the previous
LD FEM model release and the simulations may have been based on that version. As I was
only using the simulation files, I could not tell if that was actually the case. However, I
strongly suggest following up on this point as these rails are extremely important for the
crash energy management.
                                                       (b)
                  (c)                                    (d)
 Figure 42. Baseline Model. Side view of the deformation sequence of the main rails for the
                               NCAP test simulation.
                                                                              151
 image: 








                     (a)
(b)
                     (c)                                     (d)
Figure 43. Baseline Model. Top view of the deformation sequence of the main rails for the
                               NCAP test simulation.
                     (a)
                     (c)
                                                                               152
 image: 








  Figure 44. Low Development Model. Side view of the deformation sequence of the main
                          rails for the NCAP test simulation.
                     (c)                                   (d)
  Figure 45. Low Development Model. Top view of the deformation sequence of the main
                          rails for the NCAP test simulation.
Concern Item 2:

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional mild steel
vehicle designs is modeling of material fracture/failure [24]. However, in the case of the
high strength materials, such as the AHSS, the material fracture is a real possibility that
needs to be included in the models. One of the easiest failure models to implement is to
specify equivalent strain threshold for the material failure. Once this threshold is reached
during crash simulation it leads to gradual element deletion, which simulates crack
formation. I would suggest consideration of such a simple model enhancement that, while
not comprehensive enough for production design, is probably sufficient for the purposes of
                                                                              153
 image: 








the FEV study. The strain rate sensitivity of the material models would help with the
regularization of the strain localization and related numerical problems [25].
5. Vehicle Crashworthiness Testing Methodological Rigor

The correlations and modifications of the baseline vehicle FEM model to the experimental
results were primarily done on the measurements of vibrational and stiffness
characteristics of the BIW. Once the stiffness of the BIW model was tuned to the
experimental results, it was considered to be sufficiently accurate to form the foundation
for the crash model. The vehicle crash FEM model was then correlated to the NCAP and
MDB side impact. The correlations were primarily based on the deformation modes and the
FEM model was found to be satisfactory for the purposes of the FEV study.

Comparison of the deformation in the NCAP crash in Figures 46-49 shows very good
correlation of the deformation modes. The deformation of the subframe shown in the
Figures 48-49 also shows very high fidelity of the simulated deformation compared to the
experiment.
                        Time  0.011    Frame #
              41         Time  0.041    Frame #      75         Time   0.075
                  (3)                                   (4)
                 Figure 46. Vehicle side kinematics during NCAP test
                                                                            154
 image: 








Figure 47. Baseline Model. Vehicle side kinematics during NCAP test
        (3)                                   W
      Figure 48. Vehicle subframe deformation for NCAP test
                                                                   155
 image: 








                                 Venza fr_usncap_56kph intial run based
                                 Tlme= 0.077499
         r
         Figure 49. Baseline Model. Vehicle subframe deformation for NCAP test

In summary, the correlation of the baseline FEM model with the NCAP test is quite
satisfactory. The correlation with the side MDB test was not elaborated in the report.
However, the side impact is perhaps the most important and limiting design aspect for the
lightweight vehicles. The side impact is almost exclusively a structural problem that does
not compound the benefits of the reduced mass, as is the case of the frontal impact. A
documented correlation of the baseline FEM model with the side impact experiment will in
my opinion be a very beneficial technical addition to the FEV project that would
significantly support the findings of the technical feasibility of the lightweight
opportunities in the existing vehicle design space.
6. Other Comments

The FEV report is quite exhaustive. I would suggest that it be released in a hypertext format
that can allow different navigation paths through it. Also, the dynamic Web-based
technologies can be used for effective model documentation, presentation and distribution.
I would also recommend that more details on the actual optimization process, including the
objective function specification, and the final consolidation of the model, be added to the
documentation.
7. Conclusions
                                                                               156
 image: 








The FEV Low Development vehicle study has been reviewed following the instructions by
the US EPA. It has been found that the FEV study followed most of the current technical
guidelines and the state-of-the-art practices for computational crash simulation and design.
Several inconsistencies were found in the developed FEM models that need to be addressed
and corrected before the FEM models are released for the general use.
References

   1. An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year
      Vehicle Program, Lotus Engineering Inc., Rev 006A, 2010.
   2. T. Belytschko, T., Liu, W.-K., Moran, B., "Nonlinear Finite Elements for Continua and
      Structures", Wiley 2000.
   3. M.A. Crisfield, Non-linear Finite Element Analysis of Solids and Structures, Vol. 2
      Advanced Topics, Willey, 1997.
   4. "LS-DYNA Keyword User's Manual", Livermore Software Technology Corporation
      (LSTC], version 971, 2010.
   5. "Vehicle crashworthiness and occupant protection", American Iron and Steel
      Institute, Priya, Prasad and Belwafa, Jamel E., Eds. 2004.
   6. Future Steel Vehicle, Final Engineering Report, World Steel Association,
      www.worldautosteel.org, 2011.
   7. UltraLight Steel Auto Body Final Report, American Iron and Steel Institute, 1998.
   8. ULSAB Program Phase 2 Final Report to the Ultra Light Steel Auto Body Consortium,
      Porsche Engineering Services, Inc., 1998.
   9. Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS}: Application Guidelines, World Steel
      Association, www.worldautosteel.org, 2009.
   10. H. Lim, M.G. Lee, J.H. Sung, J.H. Kim, R.H. Wagoner, Time-dependent springback of
      advanced high strength steels, International Journal of Plasticity, v 29, pp 42-59,
      2012.
   11. G. Chen, M.F. Shi, T.Tyan, Fracture Modeling of AHSS in Component Crush, SAE Int. J.
      Mater. Manuf., v 4, n 1, p 1-9, 2011.
   12. H.-C. Shih, M.F. Shi, D. Zeng, Z.C. Xia, Development of Empirical Shear Fracture
      Criterion for AHSS, SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf., v 3, n 1, p 670-675, 2010.
   13. M.S. Walp, A. Wurm, J.F. Siekirk III, A.K. Desai, Shear Fracture in Advanced High
      Strength Steels, SAE Publication 2006-01-1433, SAE International, 2006.
   14. H. Zhu, X. Zhu, A Mixed-Mode Fracture Criterion for AHSS, Cracking Prediction at
      Large Strain, SAE Int. J. Mater. Manuf., v 4, n 1, p 10-26, 2011.
   15. H. Hooputra, H. Gese, H. Dell, H. Werner, A comprehensive failure model for
      crashworthiness simulation of aluminium extrusions, International Journal of
      Crashworthiness, v 9, n 5, p 449-464 2004.
   16. A. Haufe, M. Feucht, F.  Neukamm, The Challenge to Predict Material Failure in
      Crashworthiness Applications: Simulation of Producibility to Serviceability, S.
      Hiermaier (ed.}, Predictive Modeling of Dynamic Processes, pp 67-88, DOI
      10.1007/978-1-4419-0727-1 4, Springer, 2009.
                                                                               157
 image: 








17. A. Haufe, F. Neukamm, M. Feucht, T. Borvall, A comparison of recent damage and
   failure models for steel materials in crashworthiness application in LS-DYNA. In:
   llth International LS-DYNA Users Conference 2010, Detroit, MI, USA, 2010.
18. An Investigation of Resistance Welding Performance of Advanced High-Strength
   Steels, Auto/Steel Partnership, 2010.
19. N. Farabi, D.L. Chen, Y. Zhou, Tensile Properties and Work Hardening Behavior of
   Laser-Welded Dual-Phase Steel Joints, Journal of Materials Engineering and
   Performance, v 21, n 2, p 222-230, 2012.
20. J. Ha, H. Huh, Y.-D. An, and C. Park, Compatible finite element modelling of laser
   welded region for crash analysis of autobody assemblies, Materials Research
   Innovations, v 15, suppl 1, p S412-S-416, 2011.
21. M. S. Xia, M. L. Kuntz, Z. L. Tian and Y. Zhou, Failure study on laser welds of dual
   phase steel in formability testing. Science and Technology of Welding and Joining, v
   13, n 4, pp 378-387, 2008.
22. S. Sommer, F. Klokkers, Modelling of the deformation and fracture behaviour of
   laser welds for crash simulation, 7th European LS-DYNA Conference 2009.
   Proceedings, Salzburg, Austria, 2009.
23. S. Simunovic, P. Nukala, J. Fekete, D. Meuleman, M. Milititsky, Modeling of Strain Rate
   Effects in Automotive Impact, SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-1383,
   doi:10.4271/2003-01-1383, 2003.
24. J. LeMaitre, J., Handbook of Materials Behavior Models, Elsevier, 2001.
25. A. Needleman, Material rate dependence and mesh sensitivity in localization
   problems,  Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering v 67, pp 69-85,
   1988.
                                                                           158
 image: 








[insert date]

MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:      EPA Response to Comments on the peer review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction
              and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)

FROM:        Cheryl Caffrey, Assessment and Standards Division
              Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The FEV Report was reviewed by William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Glenn Daehn, Kristina
Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State University (OSU)), Douglas Richman (Kaiser Aluminum), and
Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, Srdjan Simunovic and members of the
OSU Team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling.

This memo includes a compilation of comments prepared by SRA International and responses and
actions in response to those comments from EPA.
                                                                                        159
 image: 








    1.  ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA
       SOURCES (CAE BIW and
       Vehicle)
                                                 COMMENTS
Please comment on the validity of
any data sources and assumptions
embedded in the study. Such
items include material choices,
technology choices, vehicle design,
crash validation testing, and cost
assessment that could affect its
findings.
[Joost] The material selection process used in this study suggests a good understanding of the cost and manufacturing
impacts of changing between different steel, Al, Mg, and plastic/composite based materials. Generally the material
selections are appropriate for the performance, manufacturing, and cost requirements of the particular systems.
Identifying production examples of the materials in similar systems is very  important for establishing credibility - the
project team did an excellent job identifying production examples of most  material replacements. There are, however, a
few material selections where additional consideration may be necessary:

The transmission case subsystem (pg 269) features the use of a Sr bearing  Mg alloy. Recently, Sn based alloys have been
produced and (I believe) used in production for similar applications. The use of Sn as an alloying ingredient accomplishes
many of the same goals (improved high temp creep performance, for example) at a lower cost. It may be worth
investigating these new alloys as an opportunity to reduce the cost of the lightweight transmission case subsystem. If not,
the selection of a Sr alloy is reasonable.

The feasibility of using hot rolled blanks in the body structure would be further emphasized by providing production
examples for vehicles of >200k units per year.  Similarly, the use of a 7000 series Al rear bumper is questionable - a
production example for a high volume, low cost vehicle should be provided.

The use of Thixomolded Mg seat components  should be reconsidered. Thixomolding does have the potential to provide
improved ductility compared to die casting, however the process is generally not well regarded in the automotive
community due to concerns over limited supply and press tonnage limits (which limit the maximum size of the
components that can be manufactured this way). If there is a production example of thixomolding for >200k unites per
year in automotive, then it should be cited in the report. If there is no example then I would suggest switching to die
casting (or super vacuum die casting) - the weight reduction  and cost will likely be similar.

It's not clear how the mass savings were achieved in the wheels and tires. The report states that a 2008 Toyota Prius
wheel/tire assembly will be used in place of the stock Venza wheel - however the report also  states (pg 544) that the Prius
wheel will be normalized up to the 19"x7" to maintain the original  styling of the Venza. The technology employed in the
Prius wheel is not different from the stock Venza wheel so why should a scaled-up Prius wheel weigh less than the original
Venza wheel? There are also inconsistencies in the report - table F.5-18 references eliminating the spare tire wheel while
downsizing the spare tire-why would there be a tire with  no wheel? Lastly, if the  Prius wheel/tire is scaled up to  match
                                                                                                                                     160
 image: 








the stock Venza size then the spare wheel/tire must also be scaled up - it's not clear that this happened. You are taking
significant credit for weight reduction in the wheels and tires (~2% of total vehicle weight) but it's not clear how this is
achieved.

Many of the parts in the frame have been changes to a GF Nylon (pg 667). This may not be unreasonable, but production
examples should be provided.

[Richman]
    1)  NHTSA crash test data was used for validation of collision simulation models and is an appropriate source.
    2)  Material property data was supplied by recognized supplier associations and are correct.
    3)  Cost estimates for reduced mass sheet products seem to include assumption that drive unusually high material and
       equipment  cost. This issue leads to a technology cost effectiveness that is not representative of actual production
       experience  for sheet products.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The data and sources appear to be very good, however at the time of this review there are a few
items that are unclear.

First there some statements that are referenced with superscripts, however there is not a reference list that appears in the
document.

Second, this report  does an excellent job of documenting at a high-level that the finite element analysis is carried out
properly, showing agreement with masses, stiffness and crash signatures of baseline vehicles. However, it is important
that all of the details be also available to the public, such as the detailed material geometry (mesh files), stress-strain flow-
laws used for the materials, weld locations (more than a figure), models used for weld behavior and so on. This can be
done by reference or by making the LS-DYNA models public.  It is not clear at time of review how this will be done, but it
would be a great service to make all this granular detail available. Similar statements can be made regarding the detail for
components and materials in the costing models.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] The data used appears to be valid and appropriate to the tasks that are completed. Vehicle data for
the Toyota Venza was obtained by scanning the components and creating the CAD models. Material data was found from
appropriate sources and databases. These were used to create a crash test model for the vehicle and for cost estimation. A
thorough search of  state-of-the-art vehicle design concepts was used as the basis of mass reduction for the various vehicle
systems.
                                                                                                    161
 image: 








[Simunovic] This section contains comments on validity of the data sources, material properties, and modeling
approaches used in this study. The overall methodology used by the FEV is fundamentally solid and adhere to standard
practices of the crashworthiness engineering [5]. However, an in-depth analysis of the model files reveals several areas
that may need to be addressed to fully support the findings of the study.

Firstly, as a matter of the established procedures for technical documentation, I suggest that the sources for the material
properties should be clearly referenced; especially since the authors of the FEV study worked on similar projects for steel
industry consortia [6]. Similar projects on concept vehicles [7,8] also offer guidelines on the reporting. It would also be very
helpful to readers to graphically depict mechanical properties such as material stress-strain curves, failure envelopes, etc.

Secondly, the technologically important issues with the high strength metallic materials, such as Advanced High Strength
Steels (AHSS) [9], are their special processing requirements [10], reduction in ductility, higher possibility of fracture [11-14]
(especially under high strain rates [15-17]), and joining [18-22]. Many AHSSs derive their superior mechanical properties
from their tailored microstructures, which get strongly affected during welding. Active research in welding of the AHSS
shows possibilities of significant reductions of the joint strengths due to the softening processes in Heat Affected Zone
(HAZ). Therefore, the strength values for the welds in the  current LD model (i.e. SIGY=1550 for MAT_SPOTWELD section in
the input files) seems very optimistic, and may need to be reduced or elaborated upon in the report. Several versions of
the reports were distributed and  I may have very well missed an updated version. In case that joining discussion is indeed
restricted to one page as it appears in the current FEV document, I would suggest that weld properties and constitutive
models be given additional attention in the final report.

Third important issue that I would suggest to be addressed is modeling of failure/fracture of the high strength materials in
the LD models. Despite long research on the subject, the methods for modeling localization and failure are relatively
scarce. There is still no wide consensus on how to model failure in materials. For the FEV study, special attention should be
given to the joint areas (spot welds, laser welds) that can experience the degradation of properties due to the thermo-
mechanical cycles that they have  been  exposed to. A simple way of addressing the above points would be to use failure
limit strains in plasticity models that are used in the FEV models, i.e MAT_PIECEWISELINEAR_PLASTICITY. In this approach a
limit strain  is assigned to material, and  after that limit strain is reached in a finite element, the element is gradually
removed from the simulation. The values for the failure strains are dependent on mesh and element discretization, where
additional simulations should be conducted to correlate energy to failure to the corresponding physical failure process
zone for the given problem.
                                                                                                      162
 image: 








If you find issues with data sources
and assumptions, please provide
suggestions for available data that
would improve the study.
[Joost] Two plastic technologies are very widely employed in this design: PolyOne and MuCell. It seems that the
companies who license/manufacture these technologies were used as the primary source to determine feasibility.
However they are likely to be optimistic regarding the capability of their materials. I agree that these materials are
appropriate for the indicated applications, however I feel that the credibility would be improved by including other sources
                                 (OEMs, Tier 1) or more production examples for existing platforms. With such a large amount of weight reduction
                                 attributed to PolyOne and MuCell, it would be beneficial to have a very strong case for capabilities.

                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] See above.

                                 [OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Richman]  This report is a review the 2012 FEV project to identify mass-reduction opportunities for a crossover sport utility vehicle based on the 2009 Toyota
Venza. This study is a continuation of the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Low Development (LD) study funded by the Internal Council on Sustainable Transportation
(ICCT) in 2010. Goal of the FEV project is to identify practical mass reduction technologies to achieve a 20% reduction in total vehicle mass (342 Kg) at no more
than 10% increase in consumer cost while meeting, or exceeding, all crashworthiness, performance and customer  satisfaction  attributes provided by the
baseline vehicle.
Body of the baseline vehicle is 31% of total vehicle  mass and has a dominant influence on NVH and collision performance of the total vehicle. This project
involved extensive engineering analysis of the vehicle body. BIW and closure materials and gauges were optimization to exploit the maximum mass reduction
potential from advanced low mass automotive materials and advanced manufacturing processes. Mass reduction  initiatives are identified for all  vehicle
systems including engine, transmission,  interior, suspension and chassis systems.  Most materials, manufacturing processes and components selected for the
FEV vehicle technology package are proven, cost effective and available for use on 2017 production vehicles.
Majority of mass  reduction concepts utilized  are consistent with recognized industry trends. Mass reduction potential attributed to individual components
appear reasonable and consistent with industry experience with similar components. As an advanced design concept study this is an important and useful body
of work. Results of the project provide useful insight into potential vehicle mass reduction achievable with HSS and AHSS materials.
This report is a review of the methodologies employed, technologies selected and validity of findings in the FEV study.  This reviewer has experience in vehicle
mass reduction engineering of body, engine and suspension systems. This review focuses on those areas of the FEV project.
[OSU - Kristina  Kennedy]  "Building a full vehicle model w/o the use of drawings or CAD  data..."  Has this method of tear-down + scanning been proven out in
industry or in other projects to understand how closely this method would correlate with actual data? Is this basically "reverse engineering" and is that an
acceptable method?
                                                                                                                                     163
 image: 








[OSU - Tony Luscher] Data sources are well documented in the report and will aid if any additional investigation is needed. Several of them were checked for
validity.

[Simunovic] In this document I review the methods, data, and the FEM crash models developed in the FEV study. The models were evaluated based on the
analysis of the computational simulation results and on based on the analysis of the actual model files. I want to emphasize that the scope of my review is on
the computational simulations of the vehicle crashworthiness and on the modeling approaches employed by the FEV and its contractors. The primary source for
my review were the FEV final draft report, the crash animations generated by the FEV, and the computer simulation output files for the NCAP and the ODB
crash test configurations. Two vehicle crash models were available, the baseline and the LD model. As it will be shown in the following sections, my review was
based to a large extent on the vehicle model files. Very often in the current practice, the actual  model files are not sufficiently scrutinized and are evaluated
only through the resulting computational simulations.  In the case of large complex FEM models, such as car crash models, the model's configuration complexity
and its shear size can obscure the important details of  the response and camouflage the sources of errors in the model. That is particularly common when the
technology envelope of the state-of-the-art is expanded, as is the case with ever-increasing sizes and complexities of the car crash models.
                                                                                                                                    164
 image: 








    2.  VEHICLE DESIGN
       METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
       CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                                                  COMMENTS
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art design
methods have been employed and
the extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical
rigor. You are encouraged to
provide comments on the
information contained within the
unencrypted model provided by
EDAG; the technologies chosen by
FEV; and the resulting final vehicle
design.
[Joost] The report uses a (very thorough) piece-wise approach to weight reduction - each system is broken down and
weight reduction opportunities for the individual components are identified. The weight-reduced components are then
reassembled into the final vehicle. I believe that this provides a conservative estimate for the weight reduction potential of
the Venza, where a vehicle-level redesign would provide greater weight reduction. However, I am also of the opinion that
the approach used here is in line with industry practice so; while this may not yield the maximum reasonable weight
reduction, it is likely to yield a value more in-line with industry-achievable weight reduction.

It is particularly helpful (and credible) to see descriptions technologies that were considered, but abandoned due to
performance concerns (e.g. reverting to a timing belt), manufacturing capabilities, (e.g. using a MuCell manifold), and cost
(e.g. Mg oil pan).

The suspension design process lacks sufficient detail to make the cost and weight estimates credible. Considerable Al is
used to replace steel at a very minimal cost penalty. However, as the report indicates, detailed design and validation is
necessary to confirm that these changes would be viable for the Venza. For example, changing to a hollow Al control bar is
not an industry standard practice and the use of a  hollow section may require significant changes to geometry in order to
meet the stiffness and strength requirements. While a hollow Al control bar is feasible,  I'm not confident that it can be
substituted into the design so easily.  A $0.40/kg-saved cost penalty for changing a significant number of components from
mild steel to Al seems to be an underestimate.

[Richman]
    1)  EDAG performed structural modeling. The EDAG organization is widely recognized as technically competent and
       highly experienced in modeling of auto body structure.  Modeling approach appears technically robust and logical.
    2)  Body structural analysis utilized industry recognized CAE, CAD and collision modeling analysis tools and protocols.
       Tools used are state-of-the -art and the approach.
    3)  FE model was validated against physical test data for NVH and collision performance.  Model correlation with
       physical test results is very good. No significant discrepancies or inconsistencies have  been identified  in the
       modeling results.
    4)  Based on these observation, the models would be considered valid and reliable for moderate A:B design
                                                                                                                                      165
 image: 








                                        comparisons that are the subject of this vehicle study.

                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn]  The work is well done and technically rigorous. Again, we encourage making all pertinent detail
                                 publicly available.

                                 [OSU -Tony Luscher]  The report does an excellent job of using state-of-the-art design methods. The re-engineering
                                 process included vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and data collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model.
                                 This raw STL geometry was then translated into an FE meshing tool (ANSA) to create a finite element model.

                                 [Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with the development of the baseline FEM model
                                 of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry scanning,
                                 component analysis, material characterization and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for
                                 this process by the FEV is quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the definition of
                                 joints and assembly of the overall model.

                                 The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular
                                 elements. The mesh density is mostly uniform and without large variations in the  FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios.
                                 The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal which is a very small amount given the
                                 complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for the baseline vehicle model.

                                 There are no apparent geometry conflicts in the model and  parts are well aligned with compatible geometries and FEM
                                 meshes. This is essential for accurate modeling of currently the prevailing joining method for sheet metals, spot welding.
                                 The level of geometrical detail in the model is very high and as someone who has been involved with the vehicle
                                 crashworthiness modeling for the last twenty years, I think that the developed  FEM mesh of the Venza BIW is the current
                                 state-of-the-art. Figure 4 shows some details of the BIW FEM mesh that illustrate the prevalence of the quadrilateral shell
                                 finite elements, constant aspect ratios and presence of the geometry details that are necessary for an adequate modeling
                                 of the progressive structural crush.
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the technologies
and materials selected, forming
techniques, bonding processes,
and parts integration.
[Joost] The forming, joining, and integration techniques used in the report were analyzed only by referencing production
examples or companies who produce similar products. Detailed design work would certainly include a more thorough
analysis of the manufacturing techniques however for the scope of this report I believe that the level of analysis is
appropriate.
                                                                                                                                    166
 image: 








[Richman]
    1)  Body: Process used to select materials, grades and gauges for the mass optimized body sub-group is technically
       sound and thorough.  Election of laser welding of structurally significant body panels indicates deployment of
       advanced manufacturing process where appropriate.
    2)  Non-body: Methodology used to identify, screen and select non-body mass reduction technologies is thorough,
       detailed and highly effective.  Munro Associates lead this segment of the project.  Munro is recognized as being
       technically competent, highly experienced, knowledgeable and creative in benchmarking and lean engineering of
       automotive and non-automotive systems.
[OSU - Glenn Daehn] All is in accord with the state of the art. It is not clear how welds are represented in the FE-Model,
without dissection of the LS-DYNA input stacks.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] The Toyota body repair manual was used to identify the material grades of the major parts of the
body structure. These material grades were then validated by material coupon testing.

The MSC Nastran solver was used to solve for the bending and torsion stiffness of the body in white model. Good
correlation was achieved between physical stiffness testing and FEA stiffness results.

[Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with  the development of the baseline FEM model
of the vehicle. The FEM model was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry scanning,
component analysis, material characterization and the incremental FEM model development. The turn-around time for
this process by the FEV is quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM mesh, the definition of
joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular
elements. The mesh density is mostly uniform and without large variations in the FEM element sizes and the aspect ratios.
The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements in the sheet metal  which is a very small amount given the
complexities of the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for the baseline vehicle model.

In the following, I first give the analysis of the baseline FEM model. The baseline FEM model is very  adept and can be used
for illustration of some shortcomings of the LD model that I think need to be addressed. It is important to note that the LD
model is much more complex due to a large number of materials and gages that resulted from the computational
optimization process. This complexity and the project time constraints dramatically increase the potential for error.
Unfortunately the tools for managing such complex systems are not yet mature, making the development and the
                                                                                                   167
 image: 








evaluation of this complex vehicle model very challenging. Over the years, I have developed several simple programs that
can be used to debug FEM models by directly analyzing the model files. The common approach to evaluation of large FEM
models is to almost exclusively consider computational simulation results. However, these simple tools allow for
evaluations of relationships within the FEM models directly from the model input files, thereby enabling debugging of the
models independently from the simulations.
Review of the FEM Model for the Baseline Toyota Venza

The primary material for the BIW of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza, was identified in the Lotus Phase 1 Report as
mild steel. Lotus Phase 1 study stated that the BIW also had about 8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa designation, while
everything else was commonly used mild steel sheet material. The FEV/EDAG study showed that there was more variety to
the baseline design then originally anticipated. Table 1 lists the materials used in the BIW model (file Venza_biw_r006.k)
that were modeled using MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY). Aluminum bumper was modeled using
MAT_SIMPLIFIED_JOHNSON_COOK material model in LS-DYNA. The number of material models is relatively small.

Most of the CAE tools display the FEM model based on their part identification number (ID). To verify the material model
assignment one must then verify material assignment for every part and then sort them accordingly. For large complex
models this is a very tedious process that is very error prone. More advanced CAE tools, such as HyperMesh, have options
for grouping and displaying model entities by material types and IDs. Figure 5 displays the material assignments for the
baseline BIW.

The specific assignment of the materials for the BIW and the corresponding stress-strain curves are shown in the figures
below. Most of the material models account for strain rate sensitivity of the material. For a given plastic strain, the yield
stress is calculated by interpolating stresses between two neighboring stress strain curves based on the applied strain rate.
There are established modeling recommendations for modeling strain rate sensitivity effect in crash models. The specified
stress strain curves should not intersect. Extrapolated lines from their last specified linear segment should not intersect, as
well. The material models should use plastic strain rate  [23] instead of the total strain rate as the basis of the strain rate
effect calculation. This option (VP=1) was not used in the FEV models although it is highly recommended in practice.

Figures 6-10 show the main material systems for the baseline BIW model. The material assignments correspond to the
assignments in the project's report.

The stress-strain curves for different strain  rates in the above figures do not intersect. Their extrapolations however have
                                                                                                    168
 image: 








potential for intersection at high plastic strains in Figures 7and 8. The number of the data points in Figures 9 and 10 are too
large and needs to be reduced in order to avoid the interpolation errors by the simulation program. It is obvious that
curves in Figures 9 and 10 were developed by analytical fits. Such approach can create undesirable artifacts such as an
appearance of the yield point elongation for Dual Phase steel in Figure 10. An interpolation approach with fewer points
and curves is recommended. Figure 11 illustrates the optimal piecewise linear interpolation (green curve) of the base (red)
curve in Figure 10. The interpolated curve has error of 1% of the value range with respect to the actual curve and uses only
9 points.

Next, the BIW sheet material thickness distribution is shown in Figure 12. The colors indicate symmetrical distributions in
accordance with the specified thickness distribution in the project report.

In many situations, the accuracy of the crash simulation is dependent on the shell element formulation (type) used. The
basic shell element formulation (reduced integration Belytschko-Tsay, LS-DYNA type 2) is computationally very efficient
but has lower accuracy than more complex formulations such as the fully-integrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element (LS-
DYNA type 16). Figure 12 shows the shell element formulations in the BIW model. The current crash modeling
recommendation is to use shell element type 16 when possible. The Bathe-Dvorkin shell is 3.5 times more computationally
expensive than the Belytschko-Tsay shell so that in order to  strike a proper balance  between the accuracy and the
computational speed element types can be mized in the model. This is especially true when large number of simulations is
conducted, as was the case for computational optimization in the FEV study. As it can be seen in Figure 16, the baseline
model employs accurate element formulation in the main structural components, while the Belytschko-Tsay formulation is
employed in the remainder of the sheet metal which is an appropriate compromise for the large scale computations.

Another important technical aspect of the crash simulations with the shell elements is the employed number  of
integration points through the thickness of the shells. The default (2 points) is insufficient for the crash analyses. Three
points is also inadequate in the current simulation guidelines because it results in a very quick formation of plastic hinges
in the sheet metal during crush. A minimum of 5 through-thickness  integration points is currently recommended for the
crash simulations. Therefore,  modification of the model in this regard is suggested for the general release.

Another commonly overlooked formulation aspect for the shell elements is the through thickness shear factor.
Recommended value is 0.833, which was used only in bumper structures of the current model (Figure 14). Changing the
factor to 0.833 is recommended.

In summary, the baseline Venza FEM model is developed following most of the recommended development procedures
for crash models. The modifications suggested above would meet few additional recommendations that would likely
                                                                                                    169
 image: 








increase the robustness of the model.. The NCAP and the side MDB barrier simulation results can be compared with the
actual crash tests conducted by NHTSA. The comparison of the simulation and the NCAP test shows somewhat stiffer
response of the FEM model with respect to the test (Figure 1.18.18 in the last FEV report). The maximum and the average
accelerations in the FEM model were accordingly higher than the test results. The baseline FEM model was deemed
acceptable for the purposes of the FEV study. Another important measure of the FEM model fidelity was the crash
duration time that was 20 ms shorter for the model compared to the test. This difference is noticeable because the overall
crash duration of 100 milliseconds. However, for the objectives of the FEM study, the model's crash pulse was deemed
acceptable, which for the described project schedule seemed quite reasonable.


Review of the Low Development Vehicle Model

The FEV engineers have used the computational optimization methods based on the response surface formulation in order
to determine the distribution of material types and grades that would maximally reduce the weight of the vehicle while
maintaining the performance and controlling the cost. The part distribution of the resulting optimized LD design FEM
model is shown in Figure 15.

It is probably misleading to refer to the resulting FEM model as "Low Development" since it is a product of numerous
computational simulations and an in-depth engineering study. The resulting inventory of the material models used in the
LD FEM model is listed in Table 2. It is evident that there are numerous duplicates as well as unused materials. It would be
prudent to purge the list of material models from the LD FEM model as they may lead to errors. Some of the
inconsistencies that were found in the current LD FEM model may very well be a result of this model redundancy.

Two model files contain most of the material models:
    •   Venza_master_mat_list_r006.k
    •   Venza_Material_Db_Opt_dk2.k

The horizontal black line in Table 2 separates the material model specifications between the two files. These two were
unchanged for the last two versions of the FEM models that were downloaded from the project download site.

Figures 16-32 below show the stress-strain curves for the materials used in the BIW of the LD FEM model.

There are obvious duplicates in the model specifications that would  be prudent to eliminate and modify the model
accordingly before its public release. In addition, there are some errors in the LD FEM model specifications that need to be
                                                                                                 170
 image: 








corrected.

Correction Item 1:

Material ID 9 (Figure 30) has stress-strain curves for different strain rates different strain rate curves intersect which is not
acceptable from the physical perspective.

Materials with IDs 8000006, 8000007, and 8000008 have elastic properties of lightweight materials such as Aluminum and
Magnesium alloys, but they utilize yield stress functions of HSLA 350/450 steel defined in file:
Venza_frt_susp_exhaust_30ms.k.

Currently, only the material 8000006 is used in the LD FEM model, although in the previous model version material ID
8000008 was also used.

Correction Item 2:

Some material assignments in the LD FEM model are inconsistent which is probably a result of too many material models.
The mapping of material IDs on the BIW FEM model reveal several unsymmetrical model assignments. The most obvious
discrepancy is marked in Figure 33. Here, where one model part is modeled using the mild steel while its corresponding
symmetrical counterpart is modeled using the HSLA 350/450 steel.

Additional unsymmetrical  material assignments are pointed with arrows in Figures 34-37.

Two possible outcomes of not pairing the symmetrical components with the same material ID are illustrated in Figures 36-
37. In Figure 36 the two different parts have different material assignments, which eventually refer to different  material
properties. In case of the marked parts in Figure 37, the material IDs are different but because of the repeated material
models with different IDs,  they eventually refer to the same material properties.

The above inconsistencies need to be corrected before the models are released into to the open domain.

Correction Item 3:

Another area of concern is the number of through thickness integration points for the shell elements in the current LD FEM
model. As it can be seen in Figure 38, almost all shell elements have just 2 integration points through the thickness. This is
                                                                                                    171
 image: 








clearly inadequate from the accuracy standpoint and may be responsible for some of the issuable simulation results shown
in the following figures.

Correction Item 4:

Figure 38 shows the thickness distribution in the LD FEM model of the BIW. In general, the thickness distribution is
symmetrical with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. However, a closer inspection reveals some asymmetries in
thickness assignments.

The arrows in Figures 40-41 show the parts that do not have symmetrical assignment of the values with respect to the
centerline of the vehicle. I have not checked the  extent of the differences,  but it something nonetheless that needs to be
corrected.

Concern Item 1:

The following Figures 42-45 show some results that may warrant more investigation by the project engineers. Figures 42-
43 show the deformation of the main front rails for the baseline vehicle during the NCAP test simulation. The overall
deformation is symmetrical. In the case of the LD FEM model, as shown in  Figures 44-45, the deformation is markedly
different from the baseline and unsymmetrical. The cause for that may be  in the unsymmetrical material assignments for
the main rails that were present in the previous LD FEM model release and the simulations may have been based on that
version. As I was only using the simulation files, I could not tell if that was actually the case. However, I strongly suggest
following up on this point as these rails are extremely important for the crash energy management.

Concern Item 2:

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional mild steel vehicle designs is modeling of
material fracture/failure [24]. However, in the case of the high strength materials, such as the AHSS, the material fracture
is a real possibility that needs to be included in the models. One of the easiest failure models to implement is to specify
equivalent strain threshold for the material failure. Once this threshold is reached during crash simulation it leads to
gradual element deletion, which simulates crack formation. I would suggest consideration of such a simple model
enhancement that, while not comprehensive enough for production design, is probably  sufficient for the purposes of the
FEV study. The strain rate sensitivity of the material models would help with the regularization of the strain localization
and related numerical problems [25].
                                                                                                    172
 image: 








If you are aware of better methods
employed and documented
elsewhere to help select and
analyze advanced vehicle materials
and design engineering rigor for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Everything appears to be well-done and in accord with the state of the art.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None known.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] FE Meshing Tool, ANSA. Did a quick Google search and did not find this product. Am familiar with ANSYS and others, but is ANSA an
industry-standard tool? Just confirming the wide-use of such a tool out of curiosity.

[Richman] The team of FEV, EDAG and Munro is an outstanding coalition of industry experts with the unique skills and expertise necessary to meet the
objectives of this project.
Mass reduction efforts were organized into two segments: body and non-body.  Body mass reduction focused on selection of materials (steel, aluminum,
plastics and magnesium), grades and gauges. Baseline Venza body design was not changed. Non-body mass reduction efforts examined all vehicle systems for
potential cost effective mass  reduction opportunities.  FEV utilized technical support  from  two recognized, technically qualified and  highly respected
engineering services organizations: EDAG and Munro and Associates.
EDAG focused on body structural engineering and cost modeling. They conducted detailed reverse engineering study the baseline Venza to establish baseline
vehicle mass  and structural characteristics and develop CAE, FE and collision simulation models.  Calibrated FE models were used to develop an optimized
Venza body structure.  EDAG Engineering analysis is thorough and reflects the  high level of vehicle engineering expertise and  know-how  within the EDAG
organization.  Modeling and simulation technologies utilized by EDAG are state-of-the art and EDAG has recognized competencies in effectively deploying those
tools.
The EDAG work presents a realistic perspective of achievable vehicle structure mass reduction using available design optimization tools, practical engineering
materials and available manufacturing processes. EDAG cost modeling of the baseline and reduced mass vehicle structures.
Munro lead the process of identifying, analyzing, screening and selecting cost effective mass reduction opportunities in all vehicle systems. Munro is a highly
respected engineering organization specializing in benchmarking and lean product design.  Munro process for achieving product mass and cost optimization is
well  developed and highly effective.  They utilize a creative mix of functional  analysis,  competitive benchmarking,  cross industry comparisons, advanced
materials and manufacturing process knowledge and sound engineering analysis. This segment of the study identified  a significant number  of practical mass
reduction concepts in all 20 vehicle sub-groups. The majority of mass reduction technologies selected for the final design are in some current level of volume
                                                                                                                                     173
 image: 








production and appear cost effective and realistically achievable by 2017.
FEV decomposed the total vehicle into 20 sub-systems.  Each sub-system was aggressively examined to identify realistically achievable and cost effective mass
reduction opportunities. Majority of mass reduction achieved (90%) is concentrated in (7) vehicle sub-systems:
                                Mass
                               Reduction
              Body          68 Kg
              Suspension    69
              Interior        42
              Brakes         41
              Engine         30
              Transmission   19
              Frame, Mounts 17

These 7 sub-systems account for over 90% of the cost increases and decreases in this project.
This reviewer has experience in light weighting of body, suspension  and engine systems.  Comments in the following sections are limited to those vehicle sub-
groups.
A significant number of creative and innovative mass reduction ideas were developed and selected for the remaining (17) sub-systems not discussed in this
report. Many of the ideas appear to be appropriate consideration as part of a total vehicle efficiency improvement effort.
Body Optimization Overview
Body Sub-system includes: Body-in-White (BIW),  Closures, Hood, Doors, Lift Gate, Fenders. This sub-system is the highest mass sub-group at 529 Kg, 31% of
total vehicle mass.   Body group design and material selection have  a  dominant influence on vehicle NVH and collision  performance.   For that reason,
optimization of the body structure is a major focus of this project.
       Body sub-system -     BIW, Closures, Bumper, Fenders
       Optimization results -   71 Kg mass reduction
                             $230 cost increase
                                                                                                                                     174
 image: 








FEV body mass reduction 68 Kg. (21 % of total vehicle mass reduction)
Baseline Toyota Venza body elements (BIW, closures, bumpers) are predominantly a mix of mild steel (48%) and HSS (49%) with a resulting mass of 529 Kg (31%
of total Venza mass).  This mix of materials represents a comprehensive use of automotive grade steels available when the Venza was originally designed.
Body related mass reductions from this baseline are indicative of improvements made possible by advances in materials technology.
Venza baseline BIW structure was used for both the Lotus "Low Development" and EDAG material optimization analysis.  Both studies reduced BIW mass by
similar amounts, Lotus  LD: 61 Kg, EDAG: 54 Kg.   Differences between Lotus and EDAG  structures include: specific material grades and gauges and joining
technology.  Lotus LD  structure  used conventional resistance spot welding while the  EDAG structure included continuous  laser welding  for structurally
significant joints. BIW mass for the two structures are similar:
              BIW Structure Mass
              Baseline
386 Kg
              Lotus Venza LD 325 Kg (-15.8%)
              EDAG Venza
332 Kg (-14 %)
Significant difference bending and torsional stiffness between the Lotus  and EDAG structures  (20%)  do not appear to  be fully explained by the relative
difference in mass between the structures.  Structural  stiffness for a constant shape is dependent on material gauge and modulus and not influenced by
strength properties. Auto body stiffness can be increased by improving attachment integrity.  It would be helpful to understand the influence of laser seam
welding on body NVH and collision performance.
Body Optimization
Body optimization was accomplished  using EDAG body mass optimization process.  The calibrated Venza FEA model was used.   In this process alternate
material type, grade and gauge were evaluated for NVH and collision performance.  Baseline Venza body structure was not altered. Materials evaluated include
advanced high strength steels (AHSS), aluminum, magnesium, plastics.  Material gauges were selected based on component part requirements (NVH, Collision)
and properties of specific materials. The body mass optimization process explored the potential of HSS, AHSS, aluminum, magnesium and plastics.
Optimized body structure content summary:
              Baseline   Optimized   Mass
              Mass      Mass       Reduction
                 Materials Change
       BIW   386.0 Kg  324.0
  51.0 Kg (13.2%)     HSS, AHSS, Gauge
                                                                                                                                   175
 image: 








       Doors   95.7
95.6
       Hood   17.8      10.1


       Lift Gate  15.1       7.7


       Fenders   6.8       4.9


       Bumpers    7.5     7.5


             528.9 Kg   457.7 Kg
BIW Optimization
              7.7 (43%)
              7.2 (48%)
              1.9 (28%)
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
             71.2 Kg (13.5%)
The EDAG optimized BIW is predominantly HSS and AHSS with appropriate gauge reductions.  Baseline Venza is composed of 78% mild steel and 22% HSS. This
material mix is representative of a comprehensive use of available materials at the time this Venza model was designed. The optimization process selected HSS
and AHSS for over 80% of structure.
This study provides insight into practical  BIW mass reductions achievable with recent and anticipated near term future advancements in automotive steels.
Using AHSS  aggressively with  resultant gauge reductions achieved an 13.2% reduction in BIW mass (3%  reduction in total vehicle  mass).  This finding is
consistent with similar investigations on the part of OEM organizations in North America and Europe.
Aluminum was selected for the hood, lift gate and fenders.  Mass reduction achieved for those components were: Hood: 43%, Lift gate: 48% and Fenders: 28%.
Selection of aluminum for these body components is consistent with OEM production experience and several independent organization studies. The magnitude
of mass reduction achieved in this body group is also consistent with production experience.
Body Modeling - Comments
The following observations are submitted  in the interest of completeness and do not diminish validity of findings and conclusions of the overall project.
Body Modeling - Service Loads
Vehicle models developed in this study are valid and useful for the intended scope of this project.  Models addresses overall bending and torsional stiffness,
free body modal frequencies, roof strength, and four crash test load cases. These are good indicators and cover many of the primary structural performance
concerns.
                                                                                                                                   176
 image: 








This  analysis does not address what are commonly referred to as "service loads/' including jacking, twist ditch, pothole impacts, 2G bumps, towing loads,
running loads, etc. Running loads are typically suspension loads for a variety of conditions to address strength, stiffness and fatigue durability of the body and
suspension attachment  structures and points.   Without these  other  considerations, the  optimization process could may unrealistically  reduce mass  in
components that have little effect on overall body stiffness or strength, yet are important for durability.
Body Modeling - Deformable Barrier
Modeling of deformable barriers has historically been an issue.  Source, nature or origination of the deformable barriers (moving and fixed) used in this project
are not explained.  In the offset deformable barrier crash test load cases, overall deformations, including barrier deformations are reported.  The reporting
does, however, raise a modeling concern.  Barrier deformations of over 515  mm are reported for the offset tests. The  IIHS deformable barrier has 540 mm
thickness of deformable material.  It  is not expected to compress completely.   Excessive barrier  deformation has the  potential to  change the overall
acceleration and deformation scenarios reported and influence the mass optimization process.
Body Modeling - Average Acceleration
Overall acceleration issues are not reported in a format normally used by collision development engineers. Charts of unfiltered acceleration pulses are shown
and comparisons are made by evaluation of peak accelerations. "Average accelerations" are referred to, but in this report average is the average of  left and
right side peak accelerations.
Average acceleration as represented by the slope of the filtered velocity/time curve is commonly used to evaluate relative collision performance of a structure.
Common practice is to try to steepen the curve in the early portion of the crash sequence (up to perhaps 50 ms) and to try to flatten the curve in the later parts.
The logic has to do with the motions of a restrained occupant within the structure. In addition, total velocity change, including rebound, is typically reviewed.
As an example, increasing front structure strength can increase restitution and rebound, which increases the overall change in velocity,  or Delta-V, and can
have adverse effects on overall occupant performance.  While peak accelerations are useful, unfiltered peaks can be misleading due to the  noise/vibration
effect, and at best represent only a partial analysis.
Body Modeling - Stiffness in Collision Simulation
In evaluating the performance of the optimized body structure, the analysts in general considered "less deformation" of the body structure to equate to "better
performance."  Less deformation may be an index of structural stiffness but  is not necessarily an indication of better collision performance. Less deformation
generally equates to higher decelerations and resulting forces on the occupant. It is likewise generally desirable to efficiently use as much of the allowable free
crush space as possible, not less.
Body Modeling - Door Opening
Part of the rear impact analysis includes an analysis of rear door opening deformation and an estimate of door openability post-crash.  While this is an
interesting and useful analysis, it is not explained why it is done.  It is not a required aspect of the regulations. Since it is in the report, a similar analysis should
probably be done for the front door openings in the front crash test load cases.  Most if not all manufacturers have an in-house requirement that front doors
must be openable following a standard front crash test.


                                                                                                                                       177
 image: 








Non-body Design Optimization
This project included a major engineering effort to identify practical mass reduction opportunities in non-body component groups.  A rigorous process was
followed to identify potential  mass reduction concepts. This process selected a extraordinary number of technologies that were judged to be practical, cost
effective and in volume production now or will be in production by 2017.  A few of the larger mass reduction ideas are discussed in the following sections.
Non-body mass reduction ideas selected for the final FEV vehicle design  resulted in a 21% reduction in non-body sub-group mass reduction. A portion of the
mass  reduction achieved in  this area was the result of vehicle mass  reduction (engine, wheels, tires).  The majority of non-body mass reductions  are
independent of other reductions in vehicle mass.
Suspension
       Suspension sub-system -       Wheels, Tires, Shock Absorbers,
                                    Steering Knuckles, Control Arms, Springs,...
       Optimization results -         69 Kg mass reduction
                                    $0 cost increase
       Major mass reductions in this group are:
       Wheels and Tires       32.8 Kg Resized to new weight
       Shock absorber        14.1    New light weight design
       Front Control Arm      1.9    Convert to Aluminum
       Front and Rear Knuckle 12.6    Conversion to Cast Aluminum
       Front and Rear Sta. Bar  7.0    Innovative Al tube concept
       Other                  0.6
Wheels
Downsizing wheels and tires (5) for the 317 Kg (18.5%) reduction in total vehicle mass is appropriate and is a normal consideration in OEM weight reduction
programs. Wheel and tire combinations selected represent a 22% mass reduction from the reduction for these components.  This magnitude of mass reduction
is potentially achievable, but must be considered somewhat aggressive.
Knuckles
Conversion of steering knuckles to cast aluminum is a  proven strategy.  Estimated mass  reduction by conversion to aluminum is  38% of knuckle mass.
Approximately 35% of knuckles on vehicles built in North America use aluminum knuckles.  Mass reduction achieved in those programs range from 35% to 45%

                                                                                                                                    178
 image: 








depending on knuckle configuration.  Knuckle mass reduction assessment in this study is achievable.
Control Arms
Conversion of the front control arm to forged aluminum results in a vehicle mass reduction of 2 Kg.  Baseline Venza control arm design is typical of a design
used widely throughout the industry.  A significant proportion of these arms are produced in aluminum.  Mass reduction estimates for conversion of this
component is typical of the reductions seen in similar production programs.
Shock Absorber. Sway Bars
Reduced mass shock absorber/strut designs and the tubular sway bars are innovative concepts.  Cost reduction of $58 is attributed to the reduced mass shock
absorber concept. Production viability and cost of this ideas is not known to this reviewer.
System Cost
Total cost for mass reductions in this group is estimated to be net $0.  Cost savings resulting from downsized wheels and tires ($79) and low mass shock
absorbers ($58) offset cost increases for low mass arms, knuckles and stabilizer bars.
Engine
       Optimization  results -   30.4 Kg mass reduction
                             $ 43.96 cost reduction
Main sources of engine mass reduction:
       Downsizing - constant performance    10.4 Kg (2.7 L to 2.4 L)
       Cylinder Block - Al Mg Hybrid, liners     7.1
       Valve train - Al castings, power metal    3.7
       Cooling system - plastic housings        2.6
       Timing Drive-Plastic covers            1.5
       Other                                5.1
Engine - Downsizing
Largest mass (10.4 Kg) reduction came from downsizing the engine to a smaller displacement to maintaining baseline Venza performance levels. Assessing
appropriate engine weight for a downsized engine is a complex task. Changing displacement within a basic engine achieves small incremental mass reductions.
A broader perspective was used in this study.  Based on competitive engine technology assessments, an engine was selected representing mass optimization
for the 2.4 L displacement. Mass of the new engine was adjusted based on sound engineering analysis to meet packaging and performance parameters of the

                                                                                                                                    179
 image: 








baseline engine-vehicle package.  This approach  represents an innovative, thorough and well-engineered approach to  estimating optimized  engine mass
reduction resting from vehicle mass reduction.
Developing a new engine involves massive investments in design, development and manufacturing. Production engines are designed for use in a broad range
of vehicles and for a period of time spanning several vehicle design cycles.  Manufacturers may not have the opportunity to provide a mass optimized engine
for a specific vehicle.
The majority of engine mass reduction ideas selected for the FEV Venza exploit recent advances in materials and/or manufacturing technologies.  Many small
gains were  made converting cast iron housings to cast aluminum, and cast aluminum covers and  brackets to cast magnesium or plastic.  Most of the engine
mass reduction ideas selected have been proven in multiple high volume applications over several years. A few engine Ideas have less proven high volume field
experience and were identified by FEV as "D" level selection candidates.
                                                                                                                                    180
 image: 








   3.  VEHICLE
       CRASHWORTHINESS
       TESTING
       METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
       (CAE only)
                                                 COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the vehicle body
structure's structural integrity
(NVH, etc.) and safety
crashworthiness.
[Joost] The baseline testing and comparison process (pgs. 67-128) is very thorough. The team establishes credibility in the
proposed design by performing an initial baseline comparison against the production Venza - this suggests that the
modeling techniques used can reasonably predict the performance of the lightweight design. It is unfortunate that the
deformation mode comparisons could not be made quantitative (or semi-quantitative) somehow. Comparing how the
model and test look after a crash gives an indication of deformation mode, but the comparison seems subjective. For
example, image D-28 (pg 95) seems to show slightly different failure mechanisms in the CAE model versus the real test.

The report notes that the bushing mountings were rigid in the model while they likely failed  in the real vehicle. I would
expect that these failures are designed into the vehicle to support crash energy management. The results crash pulses (pg
98) for the model and test look fairly similar, but it is unfortunate that this crash energy mechanism was not captured.

The intrusion correlation for the baseline model is very good. This again adds credibility to the modeling approach used
here.

On page 386 the report states that the Mg CCB was not included in the crash or NVH analysis. Replacing a steel CCB with
Mg is  likely to have a significant impact on both crash and NVH performance. The technology is viable (and has been used
on production vehicles as stated) however the crash energy management and NVH performance must be offset by adding
weight elsewhere in the vehicle. The CCB plays a role in crash and a major role in NVH so I do not think that it is
appropriate to suggest that the material replacement will have the reported results in this case. My suggestion is to leave
the CCB as steel in the weight analysis (or go back and redo the crash and NVH modeling, which I suspect is not viable).

[Richman]
   1)  LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this kind of analysis. FEM analysis is part science and
       part art. EDAG has the experienced engineers and analysts required to generate valid simulation models and
       results.
   2)  EDAG was thorough in their analysis, load-case selections and data for evaluation
                                                                                                                                   181
 image: 








                                    3)  The handling of acceleration data from the crash test simulations is a bit unusual, and further analysis of the data is
                                        recommended.

                                 [OSU -Tony Luscher] Trifilar suspension apparatus was used to find the CG and moments of inertia of the engine and
                                 other major components. The dynamic FEA modal setup was run using NASTRAN. Vibration modes were analyzed by the
                                 CAE model and then compared with physical test data in order to correlate the FEA model to the physical model. Five
                                 different load case configurations with appropriate barriers were placed against the full vehicle baseline model. Models
                                 were created with high detail and fidelity.

                                 [Simunovic] The correlations and modifications of the baseline vehicle FEM model to the experimental results were
                                 primarily done on the measurements of vibrational and stiffness characteristics of the BIW. Once the stiffness of the BIW
                                 model was tuned to the experimental  results,  it was considered to be sufficiently accurate to form the foundation for the
                                 crash model. The vehicle crash FEM model was then correlated to the NCAP and MDB side impact. The correlations were
                                 primarily based on the deformation modes and the FEM model was found to be satisfactory for the purposes of the FEV
                                 study.

                                 Comparison of the deformation in the NCAP crash in Figures 46-49 shows very good correlation of the deformation modes.
                                 The deformation of the subframe shown in the Figures 48-49 also shows very high fidelity of the simulated deformation
                                 compared to the experiment.

                                 In summary, the correlation of the baseline FEM model with the NCAP test is quite satisfactory. The correlation with the
                                 side MDB test was not elaborated in the report.  However, the side impact is perhaps the most important and limiting
                                 design aspect for the lightweight vehicles. The side impact is almost exclusively a structural  problem that does  not
                                 compound the benefits of the reduced mass, as  is the case of the frontal impact. A documented correlation of the baseline
                                 FEM model with the side impact experiment will in my opinion be a very beneficial technical addition to the FEV project
                                 that would significantly support the findings of the technical feasibility of the lightweight opportunities in the existing
                                 vehicle design space.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art crash
simulation testing methods have
been employed as well as the
extent to which the associated
analysis exhibits strong technical
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
    1)  CAE modeling guidelines used appear to provide a rigorous and logical technical approach to the development of
       the FE and the methods of analysis.
                                                                                                                                    182
 image: 








rigor.
    2)  Method of evaluating and comparing acceleration levels in the various crash test scenarios is a bit unusual, a more
       accepted method of comparing velocity/time plots and average accelerations is suggested.
[OSU -Tony Luscher] Global  vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to the
deformation modes of test photographs. Fidelity was good. A few notes on these comparisons are noted on this page in
the additional comments section.

[Simunovic] The FEV Low Development vehicle study has been reviewed following the instructions by the US EPA. It has
been found that the  FEV study followed most of the current technical guidelines and the state-of-the-art practices for
computational crash simulation and design. Several inconsistencies were  found in the developed FEM models that need to
be addressed and corrected before the FEM models are released for the general use.
If you have access to FMVSS crash
setups to run the model under
different scenarios in LS-DYNA, are
you able to validate the FEV/EDAG
design and results? In addition,
please comment on the AVI files
provided.
[Joost] N/A

[OSU -Tony Luscher] This reviewer has expertise in crash simulation. However due to time constraints the model was not
run under different scenarios in LS-DYNA. No AVI files were found.
If you are aware of better methods
and tools employed and
documented elsewhere to help
validate advanced materials and
design engineering rigor for 2017-
2020 vehicles, please suggest how
they might be used to improve the
study.
[Joost] N/A

[Richman]  Methods and tools were appropriate.

[OSU-Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] "Bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance (when replacing with HSS)". This is an "of course"
comment, right?  HSS would absolutely produce worse results when replacing steel.  These results were expected, correct?

[OSU -Tony Luscher] The caption on Figures 1.8.13 to 1.8.14 state that they are at 100 ms although the previous paragraph lists them as occurring at 80 ms.
The muffler deformation looks quite different in Figure 1.8.14.
                                                                                                                                   183
 image: 








Figure 1.8.33 is unclear and cannot be seen.
                                                                                                                                     184
 image: 








   4.  VEHICLE
       MANUFACTURING COST
       METHODOLOGICAL RIGOR
       (CAE BIW and Vehicle)
                                                  COMMENTS
Please comment on the methods
used to analyze the mass-reduced
vehicle body structure's
manufacturing costs.
[Joost] Overall, the costing methods used in this study seem to be very thorough. The details of the approach provide
considerable credibility to the cost estimates, however there will always be concerns regarding the accuracy of cost models
for systems where a complete, detailed engineering design has not been established. I believe that this report does a good
job of representing the cost penalties/benefits of the technologies but I would still anticipate negative response from
industry. There a few examples where I believe that the cost was underestimated or where additional data could be helpful
in corroborating the results:

The engine cost comparison suggests that the 2.4L engine will cost less than the 2.7L engine due to reduced material
content (smaller engine). The analysis goes on to say that the remaining costs (manufacturing, install, etc.) would be about
the same for both engines. This seems credible, but is it possible to compare the price of both engine types as well?  It may
be possible to find prices for both of these engines from a Toyota dealer, and while price is certainly different than cost, it
would be helpful in establishing that the cost differential estimate is reasonably accurate.

Regarding the cylinder head subsystem (pg 211), the report notes that a switch from Mg to plastic for the head covers
introduces engineering challenges related to the cam phaser circuitry. While the report identifies  two production examples
of this change, these are for high cost engines. It seems unlikely that the designs would achieve the quoted cost savings
given that this  has only been applied to high cost engines and there are recognized difficulties in the engineering/design.

Regarding the body redesign, the  estimated cost increase due to materials and manufacturing ($231.43, pg 333) for a
weight savings of 67.7kg produces a weight reduction penalty of about $3.42/kg-saved which seems appropriate for the
materials and assembly processes suggested in the report.

I don't find the cost estimates for the seats to be credible (pg 378). If it's possible to reduce the weight of the seats (which
represent a significant portion of vehicle weight) while saving significant cost, why would there be any steel seats in
production? These  are "bolt on" parts that are provided to the OEMs by suppliers so this would be a relatively easy change
to make if the cost/weight trade-off shown in this report is true. The report should, at the very least,  address why these
kinds of seats are not more prevalent in current vehicles.
                                                                                                                                      185
 image: 








Why is there a cost savings for the front axle hub (pg 555)? If you are proposing to scallop the hub during forging then you
will still need the same amount of input material - some of it will be removed during scalloping, but you will not get a cost
savings. Also,  it's not made explicitly clear that the current hub is forged. If you are proposing to move from a cast hub to a
forged hub then the cost will most certainly increase. If the cost savings here is due to the estimated weight savings in the
final part (i.e. pay for less material) then this indicates that the model is not correctly capturing the yield from the process.

[Richman] Body structure mass optimization was conducted by EDAG.  Body structure was not altered form the baseline
structure. Mass optimization process examined an appropriate range of material types, grades and gauges.  Material
properties used appear valid for the respective materials and grades. NVH and collision performance results appear
consistent and logical with no significant dis-continuities of inconsistencies.  In general the process used is excellent and
the results appear realistic and valid.
Costing models were maintained by EDAG. A complete baseline vehicle cost model was developed and calibrated to the
estimated cost of the current Venza.  The baseline model was  used to  track cost changes driven  by mass reduction
technologies.
Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are based on  detailed  analysis of the products, materials and  process
utilized.  Estimating costs for new or emerging technologies is a challenging process. Advanced technology cost estimates
are based on a combination scaling from known products  if available,  benchmarking from similar products, material
supplier costs, analysis of advanced manufacturing cost, and expert estimates. Labor rates  and manufacturing overheads
are maintained at documented industry typical levels.
This cost tracking approach is fundamentally sound and valid.  Cost estimates for new technologies are subject to validity
of cost estimates and engineering judgments in the estimate. This  project included rigorous  engineering assessments of all
mass reduction technology costs.
For most mass reduction technologies selected, cost estimates appear realistic and are consistent with current production
costs and prior vehicle mass reduction studies.  In the area of body sheet materials there appears to be some assumptions
that result in  estimated technology costs as much as 25% higher than volume production experience would suggest.  This
are is discussed in more detail in this report.
       Costs attributed to optimization of the body are reported as:
                                            Mass Reduction
                                     Cost     $/Kg saved
              BIW                  $110     $ 2.19        HSS, AHHS
                                                                                                    186
 image: 











Hood
Lift Gate
Fenders
$ 39
$ 30
$ 22
$ 5.08
$ 4.16
$10.93
Aluminum
Aluminum
Aluminum
                        Total       $ 210    $ 3.20
Cost increases projected for HSS and AHSS are marginally higher than have been reported in analytical studies and OEM
experience in volume production. Production vehicle studies of AHSS in auto body applications have suggested cost impact
of reduced body mass can offset a majority of the cost premiums associated with these materials.
Cost increases projected for aluminum sheet application are significantly higher than has been seen in prior studies and in
production OEM experience. The optimized body includes three aluminum components: Hood, Fenders and Lift Gate.
Mass reductions attributed to these three product areas are consistent with OEM production experience. Estimated cost
increases are significantly higher than have been seen in production experience.
Using the hood as an example, total cost of the baseline hood is estimated to be $43 while total cost of the aluminum hood
is estimated  to be $93. Mass savings with the aluminum hood  is 7.7 Kg resulting in  a net cost per Kg mass reduction of
$6.49.  Production program  experience with aluminum hoods typical find a cost premium  below $4.50 per Kg mass
reduction. Processing costs for a steel or aluminum hood  should be similar.  That similarity is reflected the EDAG cost
model. The main cost difference between hoods is in material cost.  Examining the EDAG cost model it appears aluminum
sheet products were assessed a base metal cost and a grade premium. The two factors appear to be combined in the cost
model results a raw material cost substantially higher than actual market price for these materials.
EDAG cost models for auto body sheet materials (AHSS and aluminum) appear to be overstating raw material costs.  A
review of the costing models and correlation with market prices for the materials and how raw material cost for sheet
products is established in the models may be appropriate.
[OSU -Tony Luscher] Mass reduction was analyzed first on  a system  level and then by a component level basis. Mass
reduction concepts were based upon a very comprehensive literature review of new materials and manufacturing
processes and alternative designs ideas that appear in the open literature and at trade shows. An assessment of these was
made in terms of technological readiness, fitness for use in mass production, risk, and cost. In addition there were
consultation  with industry and experts.

[Simunovic]  This is not my area of expertise.
                                                                                                   187
 image: 








Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art costing
methods have been employed as
well as the extent to which the
associated analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]  Costing models are thorough covering all elements of total production cost (material, processing, equipment,
tooling, freight, packaging,...). Baseline cost model was calibrated to baseline vehicle cost projection. The basic model is
complete and sound.
Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are the result of a rigorous engineering process utilizing benchmarking
data, material and component costs from suppliers and detailed analysis of manufacturing costs. Sound creative
engineering analysis was used to scale product cost to this specific vehicle application. Accuracy of new technology cost
estimates is dependent on the knowledge, skill, experience and engineering judgment of the individuals making the
estimates.  Munro Associates conducted this segment of the project.  Munro is a highly respected organization with strong
qualifications in product cost analysis. It is reasonable to assume cost estimates in this study are valid estimates for the
mass reduction technologies.
One area of cost estimate concern is reduced mass sheet products. In this area, material and equipment costs attributed
to the reduced mass technologies are significantly  higher than actual production experience would support.  Source of the
discrepancy is not clear form the information in the project review documents.
[OSU - Tony Luscher]  The impact of costs, associated with mass reduction, was evaluated using FEV's methodology and
tools as previously employed on prior powertrain analyses for EPA. Cost reduction assumptions are clearly laid out and are
reasonable. The report does a good job of realizing the inherent challenges and risks in applying any new technology, let
alone lightweight technology, to a vehicle platform.  FEV describes the component interactions both positive and negative
in its recommendations.

The actual values in the EXCEL files were not checked.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
If you are aware of better methods
and tools employed and
documented elsewhere to help
estimate costs for advanced
vehicle materials and design for
2017-2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]  Process methodology and execution used is one of the best this reviewer has seen.

[OSU-Tony Luscher]  None found.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
                                                                                                                                     188
 image: 








ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] The change from a cast Al engine block with cast Fe liners to a cast-over Mg/AI hybrid with PWTA coated cylinders is very interesting, but the cost
penalty estimate seems low relative to what I would expect. Previous work exploring the use of Mg intensive engines (which did not include the added
complexity of cast-in Al liners) suggests a cost penalty of $3.89 per pound saved (see
http://wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm 08/3 automotive  metals-cast.pdf report B) versus this report which suggests a cost penalty of $3.51
per kilogram saved, about half as expensive. The cited study was performed on a 2.5 L engine, comparable to the Venza. The primary difference is that the
Venza study includes downsizing which would save on material costs, but I'm not confident that the savings would be as substantial as indicated in this report. It
seems that something has been underestimated.

There are several examples where a cost savings has been calculated by reducing the size of a component, despite using more expensive material. For example
the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem shows a savings for the caliper subsystem and a modest increase in the cost of the rotor and shield. Some of the
cost savings here is due to reducing the size of the system (scaling to the 2008 Toyota Prius). However, there would still be a weight savings (albeit lower) if the
conventional cast iron materials were used and downsized to the 2008 Toyota Prius - this is the likely outcome in a real automotive environment. Given the
option to choose a more expensive, exotic, untested system that saves significant weight versus a conventional low cost system that saves less weight, it seems
like an OEM would choose the conventional solution. In this case the suggested weight savings are technically possible but would never happen in a practical
automotive environment.

[Richman]  A review of cost development for reduced mass sheet product should be reviewed.  Current model would lead to de-selecting some low mass
sheet based solutions due to unrepresentative cost assessment.

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy]  Table 1.7.1: NVH Results Summary. The "Weight Test Condition" and "Weight BIW" are ALSO outside of limits (> 5%), but not noted
in results.  Only those highlighted in red are noted as "failures". All failures (> 5%) should be called out specifically since that was their target.

[OSU -Tony Luscher] There are many typos and fragmented sentences in these sections. These should be corrected. Bookmark references do not all work.
                                                                                                                                    189
 image: 








    5.  CONCLUSION AND
       FINDINGS
                                                 COMMENTS
Are the study's conclusions
adequately backed up by the
methods and analytical rigor of the
study?
[Joost] Yes. I identified various areas where the analysis or report could be improved, but overall the methods used here
provide a credible and reasonable estimate of the potential for weight savings. Based on some of my earlier comments I
would expect that actual costs to be somewhat higher than predicted in this study. Additionally, real vehicles share
components across platforms so using vehicle-specific components would add additional cost. It is possible that the cost
curve would cross $0/lb-saved at a lower total weight savings than suggested  here.

[Richman]  Study conclusions and findings are well supported by the analytical rigor, tools used and expertise of the
organizations involved.
EDAG conducted  a detailed  reverse engineering process to  define  baseline Venza  component mass and structural
performance.  The process included: vehicle teardown, identification of component mass and material composition and
component scanning to  create digital models of structural components. Part connections  (spot weld,  seam weld,  laser
weld), dimensions (location, weld diameter, weld  length), and characteristics were documented during scanning process.
Material property data was obtained by coupon testing part samples.
Scan data,  part weight and material information were  used to create a CAE model  of the vehicle structure.  A finite
element (FE) model was created from the CAE model using ANSA mesh software. The FE model was used to evaluate NVH
characteristics  (bending, torsion,  modal analysis)  of the structure  using NASTRAN. Model results were compared and
calibrated with analytical test results to establish the baseline analysis model. CAE crash performance simulations (LS-
DYNA) were conducted to verify model correlation with actual vehicle crash test performance in National Highway Traffic
Safety  Association (NHTSA)  regulatory performance testing.   Model results were  calibrated to  actual Venza  crash
performance data. The correlated crash model became the baseline crash model for the remaining load cases.
EDAG is  widely recognized as highly competent and experienced in vehicle structural  modeling,  NVH  and collision
simulation  and structural engineering.  LS-Dyna, MSC/Nastran and ANSA  are valid and widely-used  simulation tools,
commonly  used and accepted within the engineering community and the industry  to perform this analysis. The approach
used by EDAG to develop Venza structural models is a state-of-the art methodology utilizing proven modeling tools.
Structural models  developed in this project were calibrated to physical test results of actual vehicle structures.  Simulation
results appear  reasonable and logical, building confidence in the fidelity of the analysis. Models have excellent correlation
to actual  vehicle performance.  FMVSS crash results are consistent with bending and torsional stiffness properties. There
is no apparent reason to question results of this modeling and simulation effort.  These models would be expected to  be
                                                                                                                                    190
 image: 








                                 valid for comparison of design alternatives. These models would be expected to provide reliable assessments of NVH and
                                 collision performance of the Venza structure.

                                 Report conclusions with regard to NVH and collision performance do not substantially overreach the capability and results
                                 of the analysis.  In some relatively minor areas, assessment to of the "optimized" structure is not fully supported by
                                 generally recognized measures of structural performance.  These few relatively uncertainties do not diminish the overall
                                 conclusion that the modeling and simulation efforts are well done and the major conclusions are valid useable.
                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] At the time of review, Section G "Conclusions and Recommendations" is unavailable. We hope that
                                 in this section FEV will point out the most promising actions that auto makers may take to reduce mass while conserving
                                 cost.

                                 [OSU - Tony Luscher] The report's conclusions are based on sound engineering principals of good rigor.
Are the conclusions about the
design, development, validation,
and cost of the mass-reduced
design valid?
[Joost] Yes. As above, there is reason to believe that the true cost will be higher than predicted here, but I think this
analysis provides a useful estimate.

[Richman]  Design development and validation conclusions are well supported in this study. Cost model is valid and cost
conclusions are generally realistic. There appears to be a systematic discrepancy in cost modeling of low mass sheet
products. This discrepancy has a minor impact on conclusions of this study.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] This study is carefully crafted with excellent attention to engineering detail.  It is important to note
that the overall environment for vehicle design, manufacture and use is continually changing. See the "Additional
Comments" section of this document for further development of the implications of this.

[OSU - Tony Luscher] This reviewer found the overall work to be thorough and well documented. Therefore the
conclusions are well supported and validated by the engineering and modeling in the report.
Are you aware of other available
research that better evaluates and
validates the technical potential
for mass-reduced vehicles in the
2017-2020 timeframe?
[Joost] I have not seen a report as thorough as this. There are several examples of resources that provide useful
information regarding weight reduction potential such as
Cheah, L.W. Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.
Joshi, A.M. Optimizing Battery Sizing and Vehicle Lightweighting for an Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Lutsey, N.  Review of technical literature and trends related to automobile mass-reduction technology

[Richman] This reviewer has monitored automotive mass reduction studies in North America and Europe for several
                                                                                                                                     191
 image: 








                                 years. This study is the best evaluation of mass reduction opportunities and associated costs this reviewer has seen.

                                 [OSU - Glenn Daehn] There are no more comprehensive or detailed studies that we are aware of. This is an excellent
                                 compilation of ideas for practical vehicle mass reduction and fuel efficiency improvement.

                                 [OSU - Tony Luscher] None found.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] The study does an excellent job within its scope. As this reviewer sees the scope, the driving question is: Can a well-engineered relatively
modern vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza) have its mass reduced by 20% or more, without significant cost penalty and while maintaining crashworthiness.  The
answer to that question is a clear "YES".  Further, this conclusion is backed with rigor and attention to detail. This is in my mind, very clear, well-done and
technically rigorous.

This reviewer believes that there are a few other important questions that were not asked. These include:

1) Will the proposed changes in design pose any other important risks in manufacture or use?  This can  include: warranty exposure, durability, increased noise,
vibration and harshness, maintenance concerns, etc., etc.

2) Will increasing regulatory constraints and/or consumer expectations require increases in vehicle mass, opposing the mass reductions provided by the
improved practices outlined in this study?

Both these issues will make vehicle light weighting more difficult than this report suggests. With respect to issue 1) there are a number of materials and design
substitutions that may produce concerns with durability, manufacturability and warranty claims. For example when substituting polymers for metals, there are
new environmental embrittlement modes that may cause failure and warranty claims. Also, if substituting aluminum for steel, multi-material connections may
cause galvanic corrosion problems. When using thinner sheets of higher strength steel, formability may be reduced and springback may be more problematic.
Both these issues may preclude the use of the stronger material with a similar design and may also increase the time and cost involved with die development.
Lastly there are always risks in any new design. For example, when using new brake designs, pad wear and squeal may be more pronounced. All of these issues
may cause a manufacturer to avoid the new technology.

There are also local constrains on material thicknesses that are outside this review methodology.  For example while a roof rail may meet crash and stiffness
criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanently if a 99th percentile male pulls on it exiting a vehicle. Similarly, parking  lot and hail dents may require greater
thickness gauges than this study may indicate.
The problem of vehicle light-weighting and improved fuel economy is seen here through the lens as being an engineering problem to be solved. And in many
                                                                                                                                     192
 image: 








ways it is.  However, the forces of consumer expectations and behaviors are an essential part of the problem.  As an interesting anecdote, the Model T Ford had
a fuel economy of about 20 MPG, very similar to the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road today. No modern consumer would choose a Model T for
many obvious reasons. Our cars have become extensions of our living rooms with many electrical motors driving windows, mirrors, seats and complex and
costly HVAC and infotainment systems. All of these systems add weight, complexity and use power.  Further increased complexity of engines to improve
emissions and increase fuel economy has increased engine mass.

This study shows that with good engineering we can reduce vehicle mass of an existing vehicle by 20% with little to no increased cost or adverse consumer
reaction. Based on our current course, it is just as likely this benefit will be taken by improved mandated safety and emission features as well as improved
creature comforts.

Much can be gained through enlightened consumer behavior (assuming the average consumer wants to reduce energy use and carbon footprint).  While much
of this is outside the scope of this report, in particular it would be useful if the average consumer would understand the lifecycle environmental impacts of
vehicle choice and of varied vehicle design, and would adopt a 'less is more' ethic and see their transportation systems as that, simply transportation. A more
minimalist ethic that would move against increasing vehicle size and the creep of multiple motors for seats, mirrors, windows, etc., would reduce acquisition
cost, maintenance cost and energy cost. This is in addition, of course, to the usual advice to reduce fuel consumption (limit trips, limit speed, tire pressure,
carpooling, etc. etc.) is still valuable.

It should also be noted that there are other potentially low-cost actions that can be easily adopted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence
on foreign oil.  One of these is widespread adoption of natural gas fuels for personal transportation.  Use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), has lower fuel cost
than gasoline, produces less pollution and greenhouse gas emission per energy used, and requires only very modest changes to conventional vehicle
architecture, with  no significant increases in complexity. The cost and size of a CNG tank and the development of refueling infrastructure are the main barriers
to adoption of a technology that could have important and positive societal benefits.

This is an excellent and useful study. It is important however to recognize the limitations of purely engineering solutions. And even within the engineering
realm, there are many reasons that the implementation of the solutions in this paper study will require much effort to become part of mainstream
automobiles.

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy]  With respect to measuring powertrain CG and moment of inertia, notes "oscillation as an undamped" condition. Just confirming,
this means no dynamic dampers were  used in the engine room modeling? Is this realistic? Acceptable practice?
                                                                                                                                    193
 image: 








   6.  OTHER POTENTIAL AREAS
       FOR COMMENT
                                                  COMMENTS
Has the study made substantial
improvements over previous
available works in the ability to
understand the feasibility of 2017-
2020 mass-reduction technology
for light-duty vehicles?  If so,
please describe.
[Joost] Yes. Other studies have reviewed the mass saving potential of various technologies individually, or imagined the
impact of combining many technologies. However I am not aware of a design study that takes an existing vehicle and
assesses each piece with the thoroughness used here.

[Richman]  Yes. Overall objectives) of the project (20% mass reduction, less than 10% cost increase) are timely and
consistent with industry interests in the short term.

Retaining the OEM designed and field proven body structure eliminates uncertainty related to evaluation of novel  and un-
proven structures. This analysis clearly identifies body mass reduction achievable with new and near term future grades of
HSS and AHSS.

An exhaustive list of non-body mass reduction concepts are evaluated in this study.  Some of these technologies are well
known and understood in the industry, other are new, creative and innovative.  Each technology is reviewed from an
engineering and cost perspective and scaled to the specific application.  The technology selection process was analytical,
rigorous and un-biased.  Majority of technologies selected are appropriate for the mass reduction and cost objectives of
the project. This information provides helpful information to industry engineers considering mass reduction alternatives
for other vehicle programs.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn]  Without question. The only similar study also targeted the Venza.  This provides much additional
analysis and many additional ideas beyond the Lotus study.

[OSU -Glenn Daehn]  The major contribution of this study was to pull together and evaluate all of the current proven
concepts that are applicable to a lightweight vehicle in the 2017-2020 timeframe. It  is successful in this regard.
Do the study design concepts have
critical deficiencies in its
applicability for 2017-2020 mass-
reduction feasibility for which
revisions should be made before
the report is finalized?  If so,
[Joost] No - I would not say that any deficiencies here are "critical".

[Richman] Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by 2017-20.
Two technologies selected for inclusion in the final vehicle concept appear "speculative" for 2017-20, Co-cast
magnesium/aluminum block and MMC brake rotors. Both technologies are identified as "D" level for implementation.
                                                                                                                                     194
 image: 








please describe.
Designing, developing and establishing production capacity for a new engine block is a time consuming and costly process.
Investments would be required by OEM manufactures and casting suppliers. It is not clear the level of human resources
and capital investment required for this technology could be justified the basis of the mass reduction potential of (7 Kg).
Aluminum MMC brake rotors were selected for inclusion in the final vehicle configuration. In the judgment of this
reviewer, this technology is the most speculative technology selected for the final vehicle configuration.  MMC rotors have
been in development for over 25 years. Development experience with these rotors has generally not been acceptable for
typical customer service. The minimum mass MMC rotor design selected in this project is a radical (by automotive
standards) multi piece bolted composite design with an MMC rotor disc. This design is identified as a "D" rated technology
and a mass savings of 9 Kg. The aluminum MMC portion of the mas reduced rotor assembly would be regarded as
"speculative" at this time.
Cost models used to assess low mass sheet product may have some questionable assumptions. For this project,
adjustment in the cost model is unlikely to influence he material selection process.  Correction in this area would have a
greater impact on technology screening and selection to achieve mass reductions above 20%.
[OSU -Glenn Daehn] Conclusions and recommendations section is missing. This is an important opportunity to reinforce
the most important actions that automakers can take.

The report still lacks the ability to trace some technical details all the way back to the source. This is described previously.
Are there fundamentally different
lightweight vehicle design
technologies that you expect to be
much more common (either in
addition to or instead of) than the
one Lotus has assessed for the
2017-2020 timeframe (Low
Development)?
[Joost] Not in the 2017-2020 time frame. Switching to an advanced steel dominant body with a few instances of Mg and Al
seems appropriate for the time frame. The considerable use of lightweight plastics is also in line with my expectations for
available technology in this time frame.

[Richman] No. The result of his study is a logical and cost effective advancement in the development of more efficient
passenger vehicles for the 2017-20 time frame.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] It seems apparent that vehicles are moving more and more to multi-materials construction and as
we move away from steel-based construction, joined primarily by resistance spot welds, there will be need for additional
joining technologies.  Laser welding is mentioned as one possible replacement for resistance spot welds, but it is expected
that  over time there will be much  more use of structural adhesives, self piercing rivets, conformal joints and other joining
strategies for the BIW.
Are there any other areas outside
of the direct scope of the analysis
[Joost] All of the areas listed here are somewhat concerning, but given the switch to fairly conventional materials I believe
that durability, driveability, and NVH should be not be a significant issue. Detailed analysis work in these areas would likely
                                                                                                                                    195
 image: 








(e.g., vehicle performance,
durability, drive ability, noise,
vibration, and hardness) for which
the mass-reduced vehicle design is
likely to exhibit any compromise
from the baseline vehicle?
require some redesign which may add cost or weight, but I don't think it would be overwhelming.

[Richman]  None identified by this reviewer.

[OSU - Glenn Daehn] Yes. There are many other details with respect to nuances of customer expectations, durability,
warranty risks and manufacturability that are discussed elsewhere in this review. This does not diminish the importance of
this great work. Just points out there are an enormous amount of detailed work required to build an automobile, and the
job is not finished.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU - Kristina Kennedy] Overall, well-written and well-done...my conclusion (which they also reached) is YES, NVH WILL SUFFER when replacing steel with
HSS and will OF COURSE make the vehicle MORE STIFF.

[Simunovic] The FEV report is quite exhaustive. I would suggest that it be released in a hypertext format that can allow different navigation paths through it.
Also, the dynamic Web-based technologies can be used for effective model documentation, presentation and distribution. I would also recommend that more
details on the actual optimization process, including the objective function specification, and the final consolidation of the model, be added to the
documentation.
                                                                                                                                    196
 image: 








I//
Peer Review Responses to "Light-Duty Vehicle
 Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize
    Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)

                      Prepared for
               Assessment and Standards Division
             Office of Transportation and Air Quality
              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                   Prepared byFEV, Inc.
                   4554 Glenmeade Lane
                 Auburn hills, Ml 48326-1766
            EPA Contract Number: EP-C-12-014 WAO-3

                     August 9, 2012
 image: 








Peer Review Responses to "Light-Duty Vehicle
 Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize
     Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)"
                    Table of Contents
  I.  Peer Review of the Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
      Utility Vehicle (FEV Report), Conducted by SRA International              p. 4
      1. Background                                       p. 4
      2. Description of Review Process                            p. 5
      3. Compilation of Review Comments                          p. 5
      4. References                                       p. 55
                                                     Draft 2
 image: 








                               Executive Summary
In December 2011, EPA contracted with SRA International (SRA) to conduct a peer review of Light-Duty
Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle (FEV Report) developed by
FEVandEDAG.

The peer reviewers selected by SRA were William Joost (U.S. Department of Energy), Glenn Daehn,
David Emerling, Kristina  Kennedy,  and Tony Luscher (The  Ohio State University), Douglas Richman
(Kaiser Aluminum), and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory).  In addition, Srdjan Simunovic
and members of the OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling. EPA would like
to extend its  appreciation to all of the reviewers for their efforts in evaluating this report and the
modeling. The reviewers brought useful and distinctive views in response to the charge questions.

The first section of this document contains the final SRA report summarizing the peer review of the FEV
Report,  including the  detailed  comments of each  peer  reviewer and a compilation  of  reviewer
comments according to the series of specific questions set forth  in the peer review charge. After each
section of comments, we provide our response.  We have retained the organization reflected in SRA's
compilation of the comments to aid the reader in moving from the SRA report to our responses.
                                                                                     Draft 3
 image: 








TO:           Cheryl Caffrey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air
              Quality (OTAQ)

FROM:        Brian Menard, SRA International

DATE:         April 26, 2012

SUBJECT:      Peer Review of Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
              Utility Vehicle (FEV Report)), developed by FEV and EDAG.


1.  Background

In developing programs to reduce greenhouse gas  (GHG) emissions from light-duty highway vehicles,
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ) has to
evaluate the safety of light weighted automotive designs as well as the methods and costs of proposed
technologies to achieve this design.

The 2012 study by FEV, Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility
Vehicle (FEV Report)  is a continuation (i.e., Phase 2 study) of the original Phase 1 Low Development
study from  Lotus  Engineering.   The  report reviews the  amount  of mass reduction in the Low
Development case ("20%") from the Lotus Engineering Phase 1 study.  This is done through analysis of
the assumptions for the Body-in-White (BIW), and through an up-to-date re-analysis of light weighting
options for all of the other vehicle components of which the Lotus Engineering assumptions are a part.
An in-depth cost evaluation of all technologies is included.  The FEV Report consists of two parts:  In the
first  part,  FEV's  contractor, EDAG, has designed and developed the BIW structure in CAE in order to
demonstrate that it meets Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) for Light-Duty Vehicles using
LS-DYNA.  The analysis includes materials, methods, and related costs to assembly and manufacturing.
The second part of the report is an in-depth investigation of "other than BIW" vehicle systems based
upon discussions with suppliers, Lotus Phase 1 report ideas, and FEV's experience and expertise.

This report documents the  peer review of the FEV Report. Section 2 of this memorandum describes the
process for selecting reviewers, administering the review process, and closing the peer review. Section
3 summarizes reviewer comments according to the series of specific questions set forth in matrix
contained  in the peer review charge.  The appendices to the memorandum contain the peer reviewers'
resumes, completed conflict of interest and bias questionnaires for each reviewer, and the peer review
charge letter.

2.  Description of Review Process

In December 2011, OTAQ contacted SRA International  to facilitate the peer review of the FEV Report.
The model and documentation were developed by FEV and EDAG.

EPA provided SRA with a short list of subject matter experts from academia and  industry to serve as a
"starting  point" from which to assemble a  list of peer reviewer candidates.   SRA selected three
independent (as defined in Sections 1.2.6 and  1.2.7 of  EPA's Peer Review Handbook, Third Edition)
                                                                                      Draft 4
 image: 








subject matter experts to conduct the requested reviews.  SRA selected subject matter experts familiar
with automotive engineering and manufacturing, automotive materials,  crash simulation, and cost
assessment.  The coverage of these subject areas is shown below in Table A.
                                          Table A:
                            Peer Reviewer Experience and Expertise
Name
Douglas Richman
William Joost
Srdjan Simunovic
Glenn Daehn
et al.
Affiliation
Kaiser
Aluminum
US DOE
Oak Ridge
National
Laboratory
The Ohio State
University
Coverage
Automotive
materials
Y
Y
Y
Y
Bonding
forming
Y
Y
Y
Y
Manufacturing
assembly
Y
Y
/
Y
Crash
simulation
/
/
Y
Y
Cost
assessment
Y
/
/
Y





To ensure the independence  and impartiality of the peer review, SRA was solely responsible for
selecting the  peer review panel.  A crucial  element in selecting peer reviewers was to determine
whether reviewers had any actual or perceived conflicts of interest or bias that might prevent them
from conducting a fair and impartial review of the FEV Report.  SRA required each reviewer to complete
and sign a conflict of interest and bias questionnaire.

SRA provided  the reviewers a copy of the most recent version of the FEV Report as well as the peer
review charge. The charge included a matrix of questions issues upon which the reviewers were asked
to comment.  Reviewers were also encouraged to provide additional comments, particularly in their
areas of expertise and work experience.

A teleconference between EPA,  FEV, EDAG, the reviewers, and SRA was held to allow reviewers the
opportunity to raise any questions or concerns they might have about the FEV Report and associated
modeling, and to raise any other related issues with EPA and SRA, including EPA's expectations for the
reviewers' final review comments.
3.  Compilation of Review Comments

The FEV Report was reviewed by William Joost (U.S. Department of  Energy),  Glenn Daehn, David
Emerling, Kristina  Kennedy, and Tony Luscher (The Ohio State  University (OSU)),  Douglas Richman
(Kaiser Aluminum), and Srdjan Simunovic (Oak Ridge National Laboratory). In addition, Srdjan Simunovic
and members of the OSU team reviewed various elements of the associated modeling.
                                                                                     Draft 5
 image: 








    1.  ASSUMPTIONS AND
       DATA SOURCES (CAE
       BIW and Vehicle)
                           COMMENTS
                    RESPONSE
Please comment on the
validity of any data sources
and assumptions embedded in
the study. Such items include
material choices, technology
choices, vehicle design, crash
validation testing,  and cost
assessment that could affect
its findings.
[Joost] The material selection process used in this study suggests a
good understanding of the cost and manufacturing impacts of changing
between different steel, Al, Mg, and plastic/composite based materials.
Generally the material selections are appropriate for the performance,
manufacturing, and cost requirements of the  particular systems.
Identifying production examples of the materials in similar systems is
very important for establishing credibility - the project team did an
excellent job identifying production examples of most material
replacements.

There are, however, a few material selections where additional
consideration may be necessary:

The transmission case subsystem (pg. 269) features the use of a Sr
bearing Mg alloy. Recently, Sn-based alloys have been produced and (I
believe) used in production for similar applications. The use of Sn as an
alloying ingredient accomplishes many of the  same goals (improved high
temp creep performance, for example) at a lower cost. It may be worth
investigating these new alloys as an opportunity to reduce the cost of
the lightweight transmission case subsystem.  If not, the selection of a Sr
alloy is reasonable.
Thank you.
                                                                                               In our study, converting the Case assembly from
                                                                                               aluminum to AJ 62 magnesium was based on the
                                                                                               functional capabilities of the material.

                                                                                               AJ 62 is a powertrain material that brings the gearbox
                                                                                               stability and uniformity into a production scenario. It
                                                                                               is paramount to the life cycle of a gearbox that creep
                                                                                               deformation is kept to a minimum. This product has
                                                                                               proven itself in many production transmission
                                                                                               applications.  There are other potential variants with
                                                                                               numerous element additions, such as Sn (tin) coming
                                                                                               to the market today and others in the future and we
                                                                                               will look at them as they come out of research for
                                                                                               light-weight and low-cost material alternatives.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 6
 image: 








The feasibility of using hot rolled blanks in the body structure would be
further emphasized by providing production examples for vehicles of
>200k units per year. Similarly, the use of a 7000 series Al rear bumper is
questionable - a production example for a high volume, low cost vehicle
should be provided.
The use of Thixomolded Mg seat components should be reconsidered.
Thixomolding does have the potential to provide improved ductility
compared to die casting; however the process is generally not well
regarded in the automotive community due to concerns over limited
supply and press tonnage limits (which limit the maximum size of the
components that can be manufactured this way). If there is a production
example of Thixomolding for >200k unites per year in automotive, then
it should be cited in the report. If there is no example then I would
suggest switching to die casting (or super vacuum die casting) - the
weight reduction and cost will likely be similar.
The use of hot rolled blanks is now being explored by
various OEMs. However, the base material used in the
process is a common material and is used throughout
the industry. The use of the 7000 series Al rear
bumper is the production material used by Toyota in
the Venza. Therefore, we chose not to change it for
this study.
The boundary conditions for this study were to take
into account that the proposed weight reduction idea
was to be production ready by 2017. Thixomold is in
current production and is a proven technology. In
report section F.4B.4.5 there is an example of a
prototype back frame showing the weight savings.
Other industries use the Thixomolding process, such
as Panasonic that uses it to manufacture their 36" TV
consoles face. The Venza seat frame fits well into the
size limits of the Thixomold size perimeters. The
following pictures below of a seat frame in production
will be added to the report. The model or OEM
cannot be disclosed due to confidentiality.
                                                                                                           Draft 7
 image: 








It's not clear how the mass savings were achieved in the wheels and
tires. The report states that a 2008 Toyota Prius wheel/tire assembly will
be used in place of the stock Venza wheel - however the report also
states (pg. 544) that the Prius wheel will be normalized up to the 19"x7"
to maintain the original styling of the Venza. The technology employed
in the Prius wheel is not different from the stock Venza wheel so why
should a scaled-up Prius wheel weigh less than the original Venza
wheel? There are also inconsistencies in the report - table F.5-18
references eliminating the spare tire wheel while downsizing the spare
tire - why would there be a tire with no wheel? Lastly, if the Prius
wheel/tire is scaled up to match the stock Venza size then the spare
wheel/tire must also be scaled up -  it's not clear that this happened.
You are taking significant credit for weight reduction in the wheels and
tires (~2% of total vehicle weight) but it's not clear how this is achieved.
The fact the Venza and Prius both share aluminum
cast wheels with a spoke design does not reflect the
differences that may exist in design methodology for
ensuring strength, stiffness and load capacity. The
width, thickness and ribbing / webbing methodology
in forming the wheels would allow for a similar visual
appearance while achieving a different designed
component mass. It will require having CAD models or
prints of both wheels to fully analyze all physical
differences to identify where the mass differences are
generated from after the components are scaled to
the same relative size for comparison.

Yes there is a discrepancy in the table cited showing a
previous idea that was not ultimately pursued in the
final solution. It should be removed.

Yes the spare tire/wheel assembly from the Prius was
also a scaled replacement for the Venza and was
scaled up due to the two units being basically the
same  type of design but of different size. A minimal
mass savings of only 2kgs was achieved (1kg in each
the tire and wheel).

By referring to table 10.3.h below, it can be seen that
similar vehicle platforms scaled up to the Venza
vehicle weight allowing for opportunities for their tire
and wheel systems to show reduction in mass as well.
This confirms the baseline design of Venza is not
optimized for weight efficiency in  comparison to these
three  vehicle systems being scaled by gross vehicle
weight. Of these three vehicle platforms, Prius is the
lightest one being chosen for the study optimization.
                                                                                                             Draft 8
 image: 








Low Mass Tire & Wheel Systems
The following Table 10.3.h. summarizes low mass production tire & wheel systems. The Prius
was selected as the basis for tires and wheels. The mass values were normalized to the Venza
mass to define the Low Development baseline.
Table 10. 3. h.: Low Mass Tire & Wheel Systems
2009 Toyota Venza 2.7
FWD

P215/55R19 Al Alloy

Weigh! '40.
65
Curb Mass 1705
Ntxmalized to 17DO kg Curb Mass 140.17
2008 Toyota Prius 1.5
Base

PI85i'65R15 Al Alloy

69.226
1349.1
87.48
2003 Citroen C5 2.0 HDi 2008 Kia Carens 2.0 CRDI
Exclusive Active

P'9f SfRI? Steel P2I5,'55R16 Al Alloy

70.714 90.13
'3426 1852.8
89.80 92.68
Table 10. 5. 4. a.: Low Development Tires & Wheels

Tires & Wheels
Road Tire & Wheel
Front
Whcel[19 x 6.5]
Tire[P225''60R19]
Valves
RH Wheel & Tire assy
Bali Searing hub cover
Rear

Qty
1

1
•
1
1
1
1
2
Baseline Mass
(2009 Toyota Venza)
144.541
120.989
60.249
15,300
14.380
0.036
30.010
0.023
60.740
New Mat. Cost LOW mass ca
(2008 Toyota Prius) Impact <-„„„, >mhlrl»e
108.896 25% Lower 0.96 cast aluminum w
87 344 0 95 Tne primary diffe
43672 095 the appropiistent
' the Priu* "-he=l "
8.600 0.93
13.200 0.98
O.C36 1.00 2°°9J
21.876 0.95 ^m
C.C23 1 .00
43.672 0.95
st Al wheel (Included in low and high development)
currently in production and several in the Venza price range use lower mass
heel designs. These are shown in Figure 10.4.1.x. along with the Venza wheel.
rence was the depth and number of the spokes. The example vehicles indicate
ss of this design for the study vehicle. Applying the ablation casting technique to
ould result in an estimated wheel mass of 8.6 kg.
oyota Venza Wheel ^^^~^"-'
3 kg (Aiiy,) 190*7.5 2008 Toyota Prius Wheel l'G|*^]
6 852 kg (Alov) 15 0>6.0 ^f ^fcofl
Upsized lo 16 x 7.6 - 9.6 kg
2005 BMW 320i Wheel
7 992 kg (Alloy! 16.0x7.0
UJ Upsized to 1 9 x 7.5 - 9.7 kg
HR^H
2008 Mercedes S Class Wheel "jft^fc
3.314 kg (Alloy* 17.0x8.0
Up»z<rdto19x7.5~10.06kg
m *•• •
Figure 10.4.1.x.: Venza Wheel shown along with some sample low mass wheel
designs.
Draft 9
 image: 








Many of the parts in the frame have been changes to a GF Nylon (pg.
667). This may not be unreasonable, but production examples should be
provided.
[Richman]
    1)  NHTSA crash test data was used for validation of collision
       simulation models and is an appropriate source.
    2)  Material property data was supplied by recognized supplier
       associations and are correct.
    3)  Cost estimates for reduced mass sheet products seem to
       include assumption that drive unusually high material and
       equipment cost. This issue leads to a technology cost
       effectiveness that is not representative of actual production
       experience for sheet products.
Added production example in section F.8.3.3: This idea
has been implemented in current production. The
2012 Chevy Cruze with the 1.4L turbocharged engine
and 6-speed automatic transmissions has plastic
engine mounts.
As mentioned in report section F.4A.11: The vehicle
closure aluminum cost in the EDAG portion in the
report reflected the revised material cost for sheet
aluminum. The cost was reduced from $4.83/kg in the
initial draft of the report to $4.46/kg in the final
report. This value is consistent with the cost utilized
for sheet aluminum in the NHTSA paper and at this
level the peer reviewer felt, that while it was on the
high end of the cost scale, it was within explainable /
acceptable limits. Additionally, to further attempt to
clarify this the cost estimates for reduced mass sheet
products is made up of many factors including
manufacturing CO2 emissions, material price (based
on the blank size, not the actual part), labor cost,
energy cost, equipment cost, tooling, building,
maintenance and overhead.  However, while all of
                                                                                                           Draft 10
 image: 








[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
The data and sources appear to be very good; however at the time of
this review there are a few items that are unclear.

First there some statements that are referenced with superscripts,
however there is not a reference list that appears in the document.

Second, this  report does an excellent job of documenting at a high-level
that the finite element analysis is carried out properly, showing
agreement with masses, stiffness and crash signatures of baseline
vehicles. However, it is important that all of the details be also available
to the public, such as the detailed material geometry  (mesh files), stress-
strain flow-laws used for the materials, weld locations (more than a
figure), models used for weld behavior and so on. This can be done by
reference or by making the LS-DYNA models public. It is not clear at
time of review how this will be done, but it would be  a great service to
make all this granular detail available. Similar statements can be made
regarding the detail for components and materials in  the costing
models.

Tony Luscher
The data used appears to be valid and appropriate to the tasks that are
completed. Vehicle data for the Toyota Venza was obtained by scanning
the components and creating the CAD models. Material data was found
                                                                  these factors were utilized when determining the cost
                                                                  of the optimized vs. the baseline, the major factor
                                                                  driving the increase was the aluminum vs. steel
                                                                  material cost related to the blank size
The material and weld data is available in the publicly
accessible FEA models (baseline and optimized
model). The stress-strain curves are included in the
report Appendix for reference.

As explained in report section D.10.1.
The welds in the model are represented as follows:
- Spot welds are represented as solid hexa elements
based on LS-DYNA mesh independent weld elements.
- Adhesives are represented as continuous solid hexa
elements using surface to surface contact.
- Laser welds are represented as continuous hexa solid
elements.
                                                                                                           Draft 11
 image: 








from appropriate sources and databases. These were used to create a
crash test model for the vehicle and for cost estimation. A thorough
search of state-of-the-art vehicle design concepts was used as the basis
of mass reduction for the various vehicle systems.

[Simunovic] This section contains comments on validity of the data
sources, material properties, and modeling approaches used in this
study. The overall methodology used by the FEV is fundamentally solid
and adhere to standard practices of the crashworthiness engineering
[5]. However, an in-depth analysis of the model files reveals several
areas that may need to be addressed to fully support the findings of the
study.

Firstly, as a matter of the established procedures for technical
documentation, I suggest that the sources for the material properties
should be clearly referenced; especially since the authors of the FEV
study worked on similar projects for steel industry consortia [6]. Similar
projects on concept vehicles [7, 8] also offer guidelines on the reporting.
It would also be very helpful to readers to graphically depict mechanical
properties such as material stress-strain curves, failure envelopes, etc.

Secondly, the technologically important issues with the high strength
metallic materials, such as Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) [9], are
their special processing requirements [10],  reduction in ductility, higher
possibility of fracture [11-14] (especially under high strain rates [15-17]),
and joining [18-22]. Many AHSSs derive their superior mechanical
properties from their tailored microstructures, which get strongly
affected during welding. Active research in welding of the AHSS shows
possibilities of significant reductions of the joint strengths due to the
softening processes in Heat Affected Zone (HAZ). Therefore, the
strength values for the welds in the current LD model (i.e. SIGY=1550 for
MAT_SPOTWELD section in the input files) seems very optimistic, and
may need to be reduced or elaborated upon in the report. Several
versions of the reports were distributed and I  may have very well missed
an updated version. In case that joining discussion is indeed restricted to
one page as it appears in the current FEV document, I would suggest
In the final report references, material properties and
stress vs. strain curves for the materials used are
included.
As explained in report section D.10.1. Additionally,
The suggestion has been reviewed and considering the
parent sheet material fracture/failure behavior, the
failure option "major in plane strain at failure"
(EPSMAJ)  of LS-DYNA MAT  123
MODIFIED_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY_RATE has
now been used in the model for materials above
350MPa Yield Stress which are considered High
Strength Steels and have less total elongation. LS-
DYNA computes the plastic strain in all elements at
each time step. When the plastic strain exceeds the
failure criterion in an element, that element is eroded,
i.e., removed from the finite element model.
                                                                                                             Draft 12
 image: 








that weld properties and constitutive models be given additional
attention in the final report.

Third important issue that I would suggest to be addressed is modeling
of failure/fracture of the high strength materials in the LD models.
Despite long research on the subject, the methods for modeling
localization and failure are relatively scarce. There is still no wide
consensus on how to model failure in materials. For the FEV study,
special attention should be given to the joint areas (spot welds, laser
welds) that can experience the degradation of properties due to the
thermo-mechanical cycles that they have been exposed to. A simple way
of addressing the above points would be to use failure limit strains in
plasticity models that are used in the FEV models, i.e.,
MAT_PIECEWISELINEAR_PLASTIQTY. In this approach a limit strain is
assigned to material, and after that limit strain  is reached in a finite
element, the element is gradually removed from the simulation. The
values for the failure strains are dependent on  mesh and element
discretization, where additional simulations should be conducted to
correlate energy to failure to the corresponding physical failure process
zone for the given problem.
                                                                                                             Draft 13
 image: 








If you find issues with data
sources and assumptions,
please provide suggestions for
available data that would
improve the study.
[Joost] Two plastic technologies are very widely employed in this
design: PolyOne and MuCell. It seems that the companies who
license/manufacture these technologies were used as the primary
source to determine feasibility. However they are likely to be optimistic
regarding the capability of their materials. I agree that these materials
are appropriate for the indicated applications; however I feel that the
credibility would be improved by including other sources (OEMs, Tier 1)
or more production examples for existing platforms. With such a large
amount of weight reduction attributed to PolyOne and MuCell, it would
be beneficial to have a very strong case for capabilities.

[Richman]

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
                             See above.
                             Tony Luscher
                             None found.
MuCell - As stated on pgs. 371 and 372, the process is
currently used by major OEMs such as Audi, Ford,
BMW, and VW. On pages 373 through 376 are actual
parts and the reduction that they yielded from VW,
Ford, and Mercedes Benz.

PolyOne - section on pg. 377 talks about the possibility
of up a 30% weight reduction and the conservative
approach we took of 10%. PolyOne Corporation
provided generic feedback and advice regarding the
amount of weight  reduction feasible for plastic parts.
These CFA application guidelines included
considerations for a respective part's material,
geometry, and application.  In general, a 10% weight
reduction was applied to parts for which a CFA was
used. Higher mass reduction may be possible for many
components, but would require a detailed analysis on
the component and its use in order to safely apply
such savings. Instead, a conservative estimate was
applied based on PolyOne's expertise where parts'
properties would not be adversely affected. For parts
with a non-Class "A" surface finish,  a weight reduction
in the 20-30% range is possible.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
[OSU]
Kristina Kennedy
"Building a full vehicle model w/o the use of drawings or CAD data..." Has this method of tear-down +
scanning been proven out in industry or in other projects to understand how closely this method would
correlate with actual data? Is this basically "reverse engineering" and is that an acceptable method?
Tony Luscher
                                                                 This would be considered the best way to establish a
                                                                 model if the CAD information were not available.  This
                                                                 technique of white light scanning is used by many of
                                                                 the automotive OEMs to compare actual component
                                                                 information to CAD information and if needed to
                                                                 actual create CAD data. This technique is highly
                                                                 valued for any reverse engineering project in the
                                                                 industry and with the advanced CAE modeling
                                                                 capabilities and tools available in the market  can
                                                                 produce highly correlated models.


                                                                                                           Draft 14
 image: 








Data sources are well documented in the report and will aid if any additional investigation is needed.
Several of them were checked for validity.

[Simunovic]
In this document I review the methods, data, and the FEM crash models developed in the FEV study. The
models were evaluated based on the analysis of the computational simulation results and on based on
the analysis of the actual model files. I want to emphasize that the scope of my review is on the
computational simulations of the vehicle crashworthiness and on the modeling approaches employed by
the FEV and its contractors. The primary source for my review were the FEV final draft report, the crash
animations generated by the FEV, and the computer simulation output files for the NCAP and the ODB
crash test configurations. Two vehicle crash models were available, the baseline and the LD model. As it
will be shown in the following sections, my review was based to a large extent on the vehicle model files.
Very often in the current practice, the actual model files are not sufficiently scrutinized and are
evaluated only through the resulting computational simulations. In the case of large complex FEM
models, such as car crash models, the model's configuration complexity and its sheer size can obscure
the important details of the response and camouflage the sources of errors in the model. That is
particularly common when the technology envelope of the state-of-the-art is expanded, as is the case
with  ever-increasing  sizes and complexities of the car crash models.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 15
 image: 








    2.  VEHICLE DESIGN
       METHODOLOGICAL
       RIGOR CAEBIW and
       Vehicle)
                             COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Please describe the extent
to which state-of-the-art
design methods have been
employed and the extent to
which the associated
analysis exhibits strong
technical rigor.  You are
encouraged to provide
comments on the
information contained
within the unencrypted
model provided by EDAG;
the technologies chosen by
FEV; and the resulting final
vehicle design.
[Joost] The report uses a (very thorough) piece-wise approach to weight
reduction - each system is broken down and weight reduction opportunities
for the individual components are identified. The weight-reduced
components are then reassembled into the final vehicle. I believe that this
provides a conservative estimate for the weight reduction potential of the
Venza, where a vehicle-level redesign would provide greater weight
reduction. However, I am also of the opinion that the approach used here is
in  line with industry practice so; while this may not yield the maximum
reasonable weight reduction, it is likely to yield a value more in-line with
industry-achievable weight reduction.

It is particularly helpful (and credible) to see descriptions technologies that
were considered, but abandoned due to performance concerns (e.g.,
reverting to a timing belt), manufacturing capabilities, (e.g., using a MuCell
manifold), and cost (e.g., Mg oil pan).

The suspension design process lacks sufficient detail to make the cost and
weight estimates credible. Considerable Al is used to replace steel at a very
minimal cost penalty. However, as the report indicates, detailed design and
validation is necessary to confirm that these changes would be viable for the
Venza. For example, changing to a hollow Al control bar is not an industry
standard practice and the use of a hollow section may require significant
changes to geometry in order to meet the stiffness and strength
requirements. While a hollow Al control bar is feasible, I'm not confident
that it can be substituted into the design so easily. A $0.40/kg-saved cost
penalty for changing a significant number of components from mild steel to
Al  seems to be an underestimate.

[Richman]
    1)  EDAG performed structural modeling. The EDAG organization is
       widely recognized as technically competent and  highly experienced
       in modeling of auto body structure.  Modeling approach appears
                                                                                                 After further discussions and investigation it was
                                                                                                 decided to move forward with a variation to the
                                                                                                 first solution proposed. Since no high volume
                                                                                                 production examples could be readily found for the
                                                                                                 hollow Al design it was decided to keep the hollow
                                                                                                 configuration but utilize the material choice of steel
                                                                                                 instead. This still allows for an adequate weight
                                                                                                 savings while using a common design choice found
                                                                                                 in most European and many domestic vehicle
                                                                                                 applications currently being produced.  This
                                                                                                 reduced the previous mass savings by 2.61kgs and
                                                                                                 decreased the associated cost by $10.83.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 16
 image: 








       technically robust and logical.
    2)  Body structural analysis utilized industry recognized CAE, CAD and
       collision modeling analysis tools and protocols.  Tools used are
       state-of-the-art and the approach.
    3)  FE model was validated against physical test data for NVH and
       collision performance. Model correlation with physical test results is
       very good. No significant discrepancies or inconsistencies have been
       identified in the modeling results.
    4)   Based on these observations, the models would be considered valid
       and reliable for moderate A:B design comparisons that are the
       subject of this vehicle study.

[OSU]
Glenn DaehnThe work is well done and technically rigorous. Again, we
encourage making all pertinent detail publicly available.

Tony Luscher
The report does an excellent job of using state-of-the-art design methods.
The re-engineering process included vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and
data collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model. This raw STL
geometry was then translated into an FE meshing tool (ANSA) to create a
finite element model.

[Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with
the development of the baseline FEM model of the vehicle. The FEM model
was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry
scanning, component analysis, material characterization and the incremental
FEM model development. The turn-around time for this process by the FEV is
quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM
mesh, the definition of joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized
quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular elements. The mesh density
is mostly uniform and without large variations in the FEM element sizes and
the aspect ratios. The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements
in the sheet metal, which is a very small amount given the complexities of
                                                                                                             Draft 17
 image: 








                           the vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety
                           for the baseline vehicle model.

                           There are no apparent geometry conflicts in the model and parts are well
                           aligned with compatible geometries and FEM meshes. This is essential for
                           accurate modeling of currently the prevailing joining method for sheet
                           metals, spot welding. The level of geometrical detail in the model is very high
                           and as someone who has been involved with the vehicle crashworthiness
                           modeling for the last twenty years, I think that the developed FEM mesh of
                           the Venza BIW is the current state-of-the-art. Figure 4 shows some details of
                           the BIW FEM mesh that illustrate the prevalence of the quadrilateral shell
                           finite elements, constant aspect ratios and presence of the geometry details
                           that are necessary for an adequate modeling of the progressive structural
                           crush.
Please comment on the
methods used to analyze
the technologies and
materials selected, forming
techniques, bonding
processes, and parts
integration.
[Joost] The forming, joining, and integration techniques used in the report
were analyzed only by referencing production examples or companies who
produce similar products. Detailed design work would certainly include a
more thorough analysis of the manufacturing techniques however for the
scope of this report I believe that the level of analysis is appropriate.

[Richman]
    1)  Body: Process used to select materials, grades  and gauges for the
       mass optimized body sub-group is technically sound and thorough.
       Election of laser welding of structurally significant body panels
       indicates deployment of advanced manufacturing process where
       appropriate.
    2)  Non-body: Methodology used to identify, screen and select non-
       body mass reduction technologies is thorough, detailed and highly
       effective.  Munro Associates lead this segment of the project.
       Munro is recognized as being technically competent, highly
       experienced, knowledgeable, and creative in benchmarking and lean
       engineering of automotive and non-automotive systems.
                           [OSU]
To clarify in the report the following will be added :

The welds in the model are represented as follows:
- Spot welds are represented as solid hexa elements
based on LS-Dyna mesh independent weld
elements.
- Adhesives are represented as continuous solid
hexa elements using surface to surface contact.
- Laser welds are represented as continuous hexa
solid elements.


                                       Draft 18
 image: 








Glenn Daehn
All is in accord with the state of the art.  It is not clear how welds are
represented in the FE-Model, without dissection of the LS-DYNA input stacks.
Tony Luscher
The Toyota body repair manual was used to identify the material grades of
the major parts of the body structure. These material grades were then
validated by material coupon testing.

The MSC Nastran solver was used to solve for the bending and torsion
stiffness of the body in white model. Good correlation was achieved
between physical stiffness testing and FEA stiffness results.

[Simunovic]  The development of the LD Toyota Venza concept started with
the development of the baseline FEM model of the vehicle. The FEM model
was developed by a reverse engineering process of disassembly, geometry
scanning, component analysis, material characterization and the incremental
FEM model development. The turn-around time for this process by the FEV is
quite impressive. Equally impressive are the apparent quality of the FEM
mesh, the definition of joints and assembly of the overall model.

The discretization of the BIW sheet materials uses proportionately sized
quadrilateral shell elements, with few triangular elements. The mesh density
is mostly uniform and without large variations in the FEM element sizes and
the aspect ratios. The BIW model has about 6% of triangular shell elements
in the sheet metal which  a very small amount is given the complexities of the
vehicle geometry. Figures 1-3 show the geometry and the parts variety for
the baseline vehicle model.
As explained in report section D.10.1. Welding
Property:
The spot welds on the structure are used with mesh
independent hexa solid weld element of LS-DYNA.
The mechanical properties use SOOMPa Yield Stress
which represents the average level strength of the
baseline material and candidate material of the
optimized structure.
                                                                                                            Draft 19
 image: 








In the following, I first give the analysis of the baseline FEM model. The
baseline FEM model is very adept and can be used for illustration of some
shortcomings of the LD model that I think need to be addressed. It is
important to note that the LD model is much more complex due to a large
number of materials and gages that resulted from the computational
optimization process. This complexity and the project time constraints
dramatically increase the potential for error. Unfortunately the tools for
managing such complex systems are not yet mature, making the
development and the evaluation of this complex vehicle model very
challenging. Over the years, I have developed several simple programs that
can be used to debug FEM models by directly analyzing the model files. The
common  approach to evaluation of large FEM models is to almost exclusively
consider computational simulation results. However, these simple tools
allow for  evaluations of relationships within the FEM models directly from
the model input files, thereby enabling debugging of the models
independently from the simulations.

Review of the FEM Model for the Baseline Toyota Venza

The primary material for the BIW of the baseline vehicle, 2009 Toyota Venza,
was identified in the Lotus Phase 1 Report as mild steel. Lotus Phase 1 study
stated that the BIW also had about 8% of Dual Phase steel with 590 MPa
designation, while everything else was commonly used  mild steel sheet
material.  The FEV/EDAG study showed that there was more variety to the
baseline design than originally anticipated. Table 1 lists the materials used in
the BIW model (file Venza_biw_r006.k) that were modeled using
MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY). Aluminum bumper was modeled
using MAT_SIMPLIFIEDJOHNSON_COOK material model in LS-DYNA. The
number of material models is relatively small.

Most of the CAE tools display the FEM model based  on their part
identification number  (ID). To verify the material model assignment one
must then verify material assignment for every part  and then sort them
accordingly. For large complex models this is a very tedious process that is
very error prone. More advanced CAE tools, such as  HyperMesh, have
The referenced shortcomings, the material ID 9
which showed an intersecting strain rate curve, the
unsymmetrical model assignment, the number of
through thickness integration points for the shell
elements, and thickness distribution which showed
some asymmetries have all been corrected in the
final paper.
                                                                                                           Draft 20
 image: 








options for grouping and displaying model entities by material types and IDs.
Figure 5 displays the material assignments for the baseline BIW.

The specific assignment of the materials for the BIW and the corresponding
stress-strain curves are shown in the figures below. Most of the material
models account for strain rate sensitivity of the material. For a given plastic
strain, the yield stress is calculated by interpolating stresses between two
neighboring stress strain curves based on the applied strain rate. There are
established modeling recommendations for modeling strain rate sensitivity
effect in crash models. The specified stress strain curves should not intersect.
Extrapolated lines from their last specified linear segment should not
intersect, as well. The material  models should use plastic strain rate [23]
instead of the total strain rate as the basis of the strain rate effect
calculation. This option (VP=1) was not used in the FEV models although it is
highly recommended in practice.

Figures 6-10 show the main material systems for the baseline BIW model.
The material assignments correspond to the assignments in the project's
report.

The stress-strain curves for different strain  rates in the above figures do not
intersect. Their extrapolations however have potential for intersection at
high plastic strains in Figures 7and 8. The number of the data points in
Figures 9 and 10 are too large and needs to be reduced in order to avoid the
interpolation errors by the simulation program. It is obvious that curves in
Figures 9 and 10 were developed by analytical fits. Such approach can create
undesirable artifacts such as an appearance of the yield point elongation for
Dual Phase steel in Figure 10. An interpolation approach with fewer points
and curves is recommended. Figure 11 illustrates the optimal piecewise
linear interpolation (green curve) of the base (red) curve in Figure 10. The
interpolated curve has error of 1% of the value range with respect to the
actual curve and uses only 9 points.

Next, the BIW sheet material thickness distribution is shown in Figure 12. The
colors indicate symmetrical distributions in accordance with the specified
thickness distribution in the project report.
In the final paper the material models did use
plastic strain rate as the basis of the strain rate
effect calculation. The option (VP=1) was used in
the final FEV models.
The stress vs. strain curves used in this report came
from "WorldAutoSteel" and, as such, no attempt
was made to manipulate the curves in any manner.
The curves were used as received and the algorithm
within LS DYNA used the data  in the analysis.
                                                                                                                Draft 21
 image: 








In many situations, the accuracy of the crash simulation is dependent on the
shell element formulation (type) used. The basic shell element formulation
(reduced integration Belytschko-Tsay, LS-DYNAtype 2)  is computationally
very efficient but has lower accuracy than more complex formulations such
as the fully-integrated Bathe-Dvorkin shell element (LS-DYNA type 16). Figure
12 shows the shell element formulations in the BIW model. The current crash
modeling recommendation is to use shell element type 16 when possible.
The Bathe-Dvorkin shell is 3.5 times more computationally expensive than
the Belytschko-Tsay shell so that in order to strike a proper balance between
the accuracy and the computational speed element types can be mixed in
the model. This is especially true when large number of simulations is
conducted, as was the case for computational optimization in the FEV study.
As it can be seen in Figure 16, the baseline model employs accurate element
formulation in the main structural components, while the Belytschko-Tsay
formulation is employed in the remainder of the sheet  metal which is an
appropriate compromise for the large scale computations.

Another important technical aspect of the crash simulations with the shell
elements is the employed number of integration points through the
thickness of the shells. The default (2 points) is insufficient for the crash
analyses. Three points is also inadequate in  the current simulation guidelines
because it results in a very quick formation of plastic hinges in the sheet
metal during crush. A minimum of 5 through-thickness  integration points is
currently recommended for the crash simulations. Therefore,  modification of
the model in this regard is suggested for the general release.

Another commonly overlooked formulation aspect for the shell elements is
the through thickness shear factor. Recommended value is 0.833, which was
used only in bumper structures of the current model (Figure 14). Changing
the factor to 0.833 is recommended.

In summary,  the baseline Venza FEM model is developed following most of
the recommended development procedures for crash models. The
modifications suggested above would meet few additional recommendations
that would likely increase the robustness of the model. The NCAP and the
In the final report the fully-integrated Bathe-
Dvorkin shell element (LS-DYNA Type-16) was used
for the element formulation in the BIW model for
the major load path parts.
    As explained in report section D.10.1.

    •   Integration Points
       The integration point through the thickness
       of the sheet metal in this BIW model is used
       with 5-point integration option for major
       load path parts.
    •   Transverse Shear Scale Factor
       The shear correction factor which is
       commonly used for shell element for
       isotropic material type has a value assigned
       of 0.833.
As explained in report section D.10.3.2. In analyzing
the comparison between the FE model and actual

                                       Draft 22
 image: 








side MDB barrier simulation results can be compared with the actual crash
tests conducted by NHTSA. The comparison of the simulation and the NCAP
test shows somewhat stiffer response of the FEM model with respect to the
test (Figure 1.18.18 in the last FEV report). The maximum and the average
accelerations in the FEM model were accordingly higher than the test results.
The baseline FEM model was deemed acceptable for the purposes of the FEV
study. Another important measure of the FEM model fidelity was the crash
duration time that was 20 ms shorter for the model compared to the test.
This difference is noticeable because the overall crash duration of 100
milliseconds. However, for the objectives of the FEM study, the model's
crash pulse was deemed acceptable, which for the described project
schedule seemed quite reasonable.
test results the side structure deformation contour
is in part dependent on structural interactions
between space holders such as seat belt retractors,
seat structure, door trim panels, seat cushions, etc.

In the FEA model there are major differences from
the actual  vehicle test conditions such as seat
structure model, retractor assembly at B-Pillar
lower along with there are no space holders like
trim panels, seat cushions, etc. Therefore the load
carrying path between side structure, seat and
tunnel block in the FEA model is not the same as in
the actual  test.

With these differences the intrusion levels seen are
generally found  to be larger than the actual test
results. The NHTSA test utilized for the comparison
was NHTSA Test No. MB5128 for 2009 Toyota Venza
38.5MPH MDB side impact, which provided the
intrusion numbers used in the comparison with the
baseline model. The intrusions in the area of the
"B" pillar mid-levels (Level 2 ~ Level 4) come out
larger than the actual test. However, the upper and
lower pivot spots (Level 1 & Level 5) show fairly
good comparison. For example, in Level 1, side
rocker level, shows 133.7 mm which is similar to the
test level of 134 mm and level 5, roof rail, shows 6.0
mm which is also similar to the test result of 12.0
mm of intrusion. However, it is felt these
differences are more than adequately explained by
the lack of actual components in the FE model. The
scope of the program did not include attempting to
                                                                                                            Draft 23
 image: 








Review of the Low Development Vehicle Model

The FEV engineers have used the computational optimization methods based
on the response surface formulation in order to determine the distribution
of material types and grades that would maximally reduce the weight of the
vehicle while maintaining the performance and controlling the cost. The part
distribution of the resulting optimized LD design FEM model is shown in
Figure 15.

It is probably misleading to refer to the resulting FEM model as "Low
Development" since it is a product of numerous computational simulations
and an in-depth engineering study. The resulting inventory of the material
models used in the LD FEM model is listed in Table 2. It is evident that there
are numerous duplicates as well as unused materials. It would be prudent to
purge the list of material models from the LD FEM model as they may lead to
errors. Some of the  inconsistencies that were found in the current LD FEM
model may very well be a result of this model redundancy.

Two model files contain most of the material models:
    •   Venza_master_mat_list_r006.k
    •   Venza_Material_Db_Opt_dk2.k

The horizontal black line in Table  2 separates the material model
specifications between the two files. These two were unchanged for the last
two versions of the  FEM models that were downloaded from the project
download site.
                                                                     correlate the intrusion values and the numbers seen
                                                                     demonstrates a reasonable tendency and therefore
                                                                     considered as acceptable.

                                                                     Since the baseline model was found to trend as
                                                                     expected when compared with actual test results
                                                                     this level of intrusion was established as the base
                                                                     and used to compare further iteration of the
                                                                     models.
The material ID's shown in the two model files is a
result of including all the potential material
selections used in the project. The initial file
included the Material ID, Load Curve ID and
Material Names for all of the potential materials
that were considered while the second file included
a shortened list of these materials that was actually
considered in the optimization process.  The
reassignment of Material ID's, and Load  Curve
Numbers for the optimized model was done to
assist in the optimization process.
                                                                                                            Draft 24
 image: 








Figures 16-32 below show the stress-strain curves for the materials used in
the BIW of the LD FEM model.

There are obvious duplicates in the model specifications that would be
prudent to eliminate and modify the model accordingly before its public
release. In addition, there are some errors in the LD FEM model
specifications that need to be corrected.
Correction Item 1:

Material ID 9 (Figure 30) has stress-strain curves for different strain rates
different strain rate curves intersect which is not acceptable from the
physical perspective.

Materials with IDs 8000006,  8000007, and 8000008 have elastic properties
of lightweight materials such as Aluminum and Magnesium alloys, but they
utilize yield stress functions of HSLA 350/450 steel defined in file:
Venza_frt_susp_exhaust_30ms.k.

Currently, only the material 8000006 is used in the LD FEM model, although
in the previous model version material ID 8000008 was also used.

Correction Item 2:

Some material assignments in the LD FEM model are inconsistent, which is
probably a result of too many material models. The mapping  of material IDs
on the BIW FEM model reveal several unsymmetrical model assignments.
The most obvious discrepancy is marked in Figure 33. Here, where one
model part is modeled using the mild steel while its corresponding
symmetrical counterpart is modeled using the HSLA 350/450 steel.

Additional unsymmetrical material assignments are pointed with arrows in
To Correction Item 1:
The strain rate curve shown intersecting has been
corrected in the final FE model.
To Correction Item 2:
The inconsistencies and the unsymmetrical model
assignments have been corrected and implemented
in the final FE model.
                                                                                                             Draft 25
 image: 








Figures 34-37.

Two possible outcomes of not pairing the symmetrical components with the
same material ID are illustrated in Figures 36-37. In Figure 36 the two
different parts have different material assignments, which eventually refer to
different material properties. In case of the marked parts in Figure 37, the
material IDs are different but because of the repeated material models with
different IDs, they eventually refer to the same material properties.

The above inconsistencies need to be corrected before the models are
released into to the open domain.

Correction Item 3:

Another area of concern is the number of through thickness integration
points for the shell  elements in the current LD FEM model. As it can be seen
in Figure 38, almost all shell  elements have just 2 integration points through
the thickness. This is clearly  inadequate from the accuracy standpoint and
may be responsible for some of the issuable simulation results shown in the
following figures.
Correction Item 4:

Figure 38 shows the thickness distribution in the LD FEM model of the BIW.
In general, the thickness distribution is symmetrical with respect to the
centerline of the vehicle. However, a closer inspection reveals some
asymmetries in thickness assignments.

The arrows in Figures 40-41 show the parts that do not have symmetrical
assignment of the values with respect to the centerline of the vehicle. I have
not checked the extent of the differences, but it something nonetheless that
needs to be corrected.
To Correction Item 3:
The number of integration points through the
thickness of the sheet metal is a very important
technical aspect of the crash simulations and the
shell elements. The default number (2 points) of
integration points is considered insufficient for most
crash analyses. Therefore in the final models 5
through-thickness integration points, which is the
current accepted practice, was selected and used
for all of the major load path parts.
RE: Correction Item 4:
As explained in report section F.4A.10:
The material thickness distribution and material
selection in the final models have been corrected
and the parts now have symmetrical assignment of
the values with respect to the centerline of the
vehicle.
                                                                                                              Draft 26
 image: 








Concern Item 1:

The following Figures 42-45 show some results that may warrant more
investigation by the project engineers. Figures 42-43 show the deformation
of the main front rails for the baseline vehicle during the NCAP test
simulation. The overall deformation is symmetrical. In the case of the LD FEM
model, as shown  in Figures 44-45, the deformation is markedly different
from the baseline and unsymmetrical. The cause for that may be in the
unsymmetrical material assignments for the main rails that were present in
the previous LD FEM model release and the simulations may have been
based on that version. As I was only using the simulation files,  I could not tell
if that was actually the case. However, I strongly suggest following up on this
point as these rails are extremely important for the crash energy
management.
Concern Item 2:

One of the modeling aspects that is usually not considered in conventional
mild steel vehicle designs is modeling of material fracture/failure [24].
However, in the case of the high strength materials, such as the AHSS, the
material fracture is a real possibility that needs to be included in the models.
Answer for Concern Item 1:
The non-symmetrical deformation mode behavior is
due to the packaging differences on left and right
shock tower areas.  It is worth noting that the
engine compartment packaging is not symmetrical
in the base vehicle. The methodology used to
determine acceptability of the revised structure was
the comparison of the intrusion values and the
resulting pulse. The deformation of the structure
was not one of the factors reviewed or used in
determining acceptability of the revised structure.
It was beyond the scope of this project to perform a
complete analysis of the structure and the various
structural members. The areas that were reviewed
were dash intrusion and pulse and the results of
both of these areas were considered acceptable in
both the baseline and the optimized model so no
further investigation into the rail deformation
shapes was undertaken.  However, it is agreed that
if this  project was done at an OEM leading to
putting these changes into production a complete
analysis of the rails would have to be performed.
Answer for Concern Item 2:
The suggestion has been reviewed and considering
the parent sheet material fracture/failure behavior,
the failure option "major in plane strain at failure"
(EPSMAJ) ofLS-DYNAMAT 123
                                                                                                             Draft 27
 image: 








                           One of the easiest failure models to implement is to specify equivalent strain
                           threshold for the material failure. Once this threshold is reached during crash
                           simulation it leads to gradual element deletion, which simulates crack
                           formation. I would suggest consideration of such a simple model
                           enhancement that, while not comprehensive enough for production design,
                           is probably sufficient for the purposes of the FEV study. The strain rate
                           sensitivity of the material models would help with the regularization of the
                           strain localization and related numerical problems [25].
                                                                      MODIFIED_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY_RATE
                                                                      has now been used in the model for materials
                                                                      above 350MPa Yield Stress which are considered
                                                                      High Strength Steels and have less total elongation.
                                                                      LS-DYNA computes the plastic strain in all elements
                                                                      at each time step. When the plastic strain exceeds
                                                                      the failure criterion in an element, that element is
                                                                      eroded, i.e., removed from the finite element
                                                                      model.
If you are aware of better
methods employed and
documented elsewhere to
help select and analyze
advanced vehicle materials
and design engineering rigor
for 2017-2020 vehicles,
please suggest how they
might be used to improve
this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
Everything appears to be well-done and in accord with the state of the art.

Tony Luscher
None known.
                           [Simunovic]
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
[OSU]
Kristina Kennedy
FE Meshing Tool, ANSA. Did a quick Google search and did not find this product. Am familiar with ANSYS
and others, but is ANSA an industry-standard tool? Just confirming the wide-use of such a tool out of
curiosity.
[Richman]
This analysis does not address what are commonly referred to as "service loads," including jacking, twist
ditch, pothole impacts, 2G bumps, towing loads, running loads, etc.  Running loads are typically suspension
                                                                      ANSA is used by EDAG along with many of the OEMs
                                                                      and is recognized software throughout the Industry
                                                                      for FE modeling.
                                                                     The analysis of "service loads," while considered
                                                                     extremely important, was not part of the original

                                                                                                            Draft 28
 image: 








loads for a variety  of conditions to  address  strength,  stiffness and fatigue durability of the body and
suspension attachment  structures and  points.   Without these other  considerations, the optimization
process could may  unrealistically reduce  mass in components that have  little effect  on overall body
stiffness or strength, yet are important for durability.
Modeling  of deformable barriers has historically been an  issue.   Source, nature or origination of the
deformable barriers (moving and fixed) used in this project are not explained.  In the offset deformable
barrier crash test  load cases,  overall deformations,  including barrier deformations are reported.  The
reporting does, however, raise a modeling concern. Barrier deformations of over 515 mm are reported for
the offset tests.  The IIHS deformable barrier has 540 mm thickness of deformable material.   It is not
expected to compress completely.  Excessive barrier deformation has the potential to change the overall
acceleration and deformation scenarios reported and influence the mass optimization process.
scope of this project. The initial scope of this
project was to verify the body weight reduction
levels shown in the original Lotus Engineering
Report (and subsequent Lotus revisions to the
report). This investigation was performed through
the development of NVH and crash model load
cases. Upon completion of that investigation, the
project then included investigation into additional
weight saving opportunities utilizing the same
methodology used to verify the findings in the Lotus
Engineering Report. These load cases were the
basis for validating all the additional weight
reduction opportunities identified throughout the
material optimization studies.
The barriers utilized in the CAE studies are
commercially available. These are:
Front Offset Barrier: LSTC.ODB.Solid 2009 version
Side FMVSS 214 Barrier Impact: LSTC 2007 version
Rear Impact FMVSS 301: LSTC 2007 version
The deformation of the barrier was not unexpected
with the maximum deformation localized in areas as
can be seen in the picture below.  Our review of the
crash event does not indicate any concerns in the
barrier performance.
                                                                                                                                          Draft 29
 image: 








In evaluating the performance of the optimized body structure, the analysts in general considered "less
deformation" of the body structure to equate to "better performance." Less deformation may be an index
of structural stiffness but is not necessarily an indication of better collision performance. Less deformation
generally equates to higher  decelerations and resulting forces on the occupant.  It is likewise generally
desirable to efficiently use  as much of the allowable free crush space as possible, not less.
Part of the rear impact analysis includes an analysis of rear door opening deformation and an estimate of
door openability post-crash. While this is an interesting and useful analysis, it is not explained why it is
done.  It is not a required aspect  of the regulations.  Since it is in the report, a similar analysis should
probably be  done for the front door  openings  in the  front crash test load cases.   Most  if not  all
The statements declaring less deformation are not
necessarily indicators of better collision
performance or that it is generally desirable to use
as much of the allowable free crush space as
possible, as both are true.  However, structural
strength and reduction in cabin intrusion are also
key indicators of vehicle performance and occupant
safety. Without having all of the interior data and
the passive and active restraint system information
for the crash models, it was determined for this
study that the crash pulse,  intrusion numbers, and
deformation modes / appearance would be used to
establish baseline values and that all future
iterations would be compared to these parameters
in an attempt to judge whether the performance of
the various iterations were similar in nature to the
established baseline. Therefore, these values were
felt to be in the acceptable range.
For the rear crash event the acceptance criteria was
established as similar fuel tank performance.  The
fuel tank integrity was analyzed by its plastic strain
plot with no significant risk of fuel system damage
being seen as the maximum strain amount was less
than 20% of the plastic strain for the entire fuel
                                                                                                                                           Draft 30
 image: 








manufacturers have an in-house requirement that front doors must be openable following a standard front
crash test.
tank system. To further help understand the
damageability resulting in the rear crash event, the
rear portion of the vehicle was divided into four
zones and the deformation  of these zones were
reviewed. While the ability to open the rear the is
not a regulatory requirement the rear door
aperture opening does provide an indication into
the structural performance  of the rear of the
vehicle and it was felt that if the this opening was
also maintained this would  provide further evidence
that the fuel tank integrity was in fact being
maintained.

As explained in report section D.10.4.4.
There was no NHSTA rear crash to compare to so
EDAG established the baseline from the rear crash
of the baseline model. The  acceptance criteria
established for the rear crash was no damage to the
fuel tank. Additionally, to support the conclusion
that the tank maintained its integrity throughout
the rear crash event, the rear was divided into 4
zones and the amount of deformation of each zone
was reviewed to support the fuel tank integrity
requirement.
                                                                                                                                        Draft 31
 image: 








    3. VEHICLE
    CRASHWORTHINESS
    TESTING
    METHODOLOGICAL
    RIGOR (CAE only)
                            COMMENTS
                  RESPONSE
Please comment on the
methods used to analyze the
vehicle body structure's
structural integrity (NVH, etc.
and safety crashworthiness.
[Joost] The baseline testing and comparison process (pgs. 67-128) is very
thorough. The team establishes credibility in the proposed design by
performing an initial baseline comparison against the production Venza -
this suggests that the modeling techniques used can reasonably predict the
performance of the lightweight design. It is unfortunate that the
deformation mode comparisons could not be made quantitative (or semi-
quantitative) somehow. Comparing how the model and test look after a
crash gives an indication of deformation mode, but the comparison seems
subjective. For example, image D-28 (pg. 95) seems to show slightly
different failure mechanisms in the CAE model versus the real test.

The report notes that the bushing mountings were rigid in the model while
they likely failed in the real vehicle. I would expect that these failures are
designed into the vehicle to support crash  energy management. The  results
crash pulses (pg. 98) for the model and test look fairly similar, but it is
unfortunate that this crash energy mechanism was not captured.

The intrusion correlation for the baseline model is very good. This again
adds credibility to the modeling approach used here.
The scope of this project did not include modeling
all of the necessary components required to build a
fully functional and correlated crash model.
Rather, the original intent was to validate the Lotus
Engineering study and provide additional weight
reduction opportunities. The strategy employed to
accomplish this was to develop a correlated NVH
model, static and dynamic modes, and from that
model build a crash model. The results of the crash
model would then be compared to the actual crash
test to ensure the results looked similar. However,
there was no attempt to analyze the differences
and to correlate the results. For this project, the
results of the baseline CAE crash model would be
used to compare all future model results.

The bushings are modeled as rigid solid elements;
however, the mount attachments (generalized spot
weld) are modeled with the appropriate failure
time constraints (TFAIL option of LS-DYNA). This
same technique was used to compare the results of
all of the model iterations.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 32
 image: 








On page 386 the report states that the Mg CCB was not included in the
crash or NVH analysis. Replacing a steel CCB with Mg is likely to have a
significant impact on both crash and NVH performance. The technology is
viable (and has been used on production vehicles as stated) however the
crash energy management and NVH performance must be offset by adding
weight elsewhere in the vehicle. The CCB plays a role in crash and a major
role in NVH so I do not think that it is appropriate to suggest that the
material replacement will have the reported results in this case. My
suggestion is to leave the CCB as steel in the weight analysis (or go back and
redo the crash and NVH modeling, which I suspect  is not viable).
Some general assumptions were initially applied to
convert the CCB from steel to magnesium. In
particular, the gauge of the material was doubled
to account for the reduced strength magnesium
exhibits compared to steel. Magnesium's yield
strength is in the 200-275 MPa range depending on
the alloy used. A common steel used for a
CCB is HSLA 420, which exhibits a yield strength of
around 420-550 MPa. For the rough assumptions in
this analysis, the increase in thickness of the
magnesium CCB would increase its moment of
inertia, thereby  making up for the relatively low
strength of magnesium compared to steel. In order
to validate this, mathematical modeling would
need to be conducted based on the testing
requirements for the CCB. Such an engineering
analysis was beyond the scope of this  study. In  light
of this, the benchmarking results were cross-
referenced. The Dodge Caliber's magnesium beam
is 5.6 kg and the BMW X5's is 5.8 kg. In reality, the
magnesium CCB will take a much different shape
than the baseline steel one as illustrated in the
pictures in the previous sections. It was determined
that using the mass of existing magnesium CCBs
would be a secure approach  as opposed to the
mass that resulted using the thickness increase
assumptions. Therefore, an average of these two
numbers was used for the Venza's redesigned CCB
resulting in a final mass of 5.7 kg, saving
approximately 4 kg versus the baseline steel beam.
The magnesium  CCB was not considered in the
NVH or crash analyses performed.

The NVH analysis provided in the  report does not
include the Cross Car Beam (CCB). The dynamic
and static modes did not include "bolted" on parts
                                                                                                          Draft 33
 image: 








[Richman]
    1)  LS-Dyna and MSC-Nastran are current and accepted tools for this
       kind of analysis. FEM analysis is part science and part art. EDAG
       has the experienced engineers and analysts required to generate
       valid simulation models and results.
    2)  EDAG was thorough in their analysis, load-case selections and data
       for evaluation
    3)  The handling of acceleration data from the crash test simulations is
       a bit unusual, and further analysis of the data is recommended.

[OSU]
Tony Luscher
Trifilar suspension apparatus was used to find the CG and moments of
inertia of the engine and other major components. The dynamic FEA modal
setup was run using NASTRAN. Vibration modes were analyzed by the CAE
model and then compared with physical test data in order to correlate the
FEA model to the physical model. Five different load case configurations
with appropriate barriers were placed against the full vehicle baseline
model. Models were created with high detail and fidelity.

[Simunovic] The correlations and modifications of the baseline vehicle FEM
model to the experimental results were primarily done on the
measurements of vibrational and stiffness characteristics of the BIW. Once
/ components. Rather, the configuration was the
same as actually tested in the NVH Lab. While it is
true that the CCB plays a significant role in vehicle
level NVH model separation strategy, it was not
considered in the BIW structure analysis.

The crash models, on the other hand, did include
the CCB and it was modeled in steel. Once again
based on the scope of the project and using the
crash models for comparison it was felt the use of a
steel CCB would result in a realistic comparison of
the body performance during major crash events.
                                                                                                            Draft 34
 image: 








                            the stiffness of the BIW model was tuned to the experimental results, it was
                            considered to be sufficiently accurate to form the foundation for the crash
                            model. The vehicle crash FEM model was then correlated to the NCAP and
                            MDB side impact. The correlations were primarily based on the deformation
                            modes and the FEM model was found to be satisfactory for the purposes of
                            the FEV study.

                            Comparison of the deformation in the NCAP crash in Figures 46-49 shows
                            very good  correlation of the deformation modes. The deformation of the
                            subframe shown in the Figures 48-49 also shows very high fidelity of the
                            simulated  deformation compared to the experiment.

                            In summary, the correlation of the baseline FEM model with the NCAP test
                            is quite satisfactory. The correlation with the side MDB test was not
                            elaborated in  the report. However, the side impact is perhaps the most
                            important and limiting design aspect for the lightweight vehicles. The side
                            impact is almost exclusively a structural problem that does not compound
                            the benefits of the reduced mass, as is the case of the frontal impact. A
                            documented correlation of the baseline FEM model with the side impact
                            experiment will in my opinion be a very beneficial technical addition to the
                            FEV project that would significantly support the findings of the technical
                            feasibility of the lightweight opportunities in the existing vehicle design
                            space.
                                                                     As explained on page 24 of this report in section
                                                                     "Please comment on the methods used to analyze
                                                                     the technologies and materials selected, forming
                                                                     techniques, bonding processes, and parts
                                                                     integration." Response to [Simunovic] comment.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art crash
simulation testing methods
have been employed as well
as the extent to which the
associated analysis exhibits
strong technical rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
    1)  CAE modeling guidelines used appear to provide a rigorous and
       logical technical approach to the development of the FE and the
       methods of analysis.
    2)  Method of evaluating and comparing acceleration levels in the
       various crash test scenarios is a  bit unusual; a more accepted
       method of comparing velocity/time plots and average accelerations
       is suggested.

[OSU]
Tony Luscher
The scope of the project was not based on
evaluating acceleration levels or velocity/time plots
in the various crash test scenarios, but rather
comparing intrusion values between the EDAG
baseline model and optimized model.  Early on the
decision was made to judge the performance of
revised structure primarily based on intrusion

                                      Draft 35
 image: 








                            Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and
                            compared to the deformation modes of test photographs. Fidelity was
                            good. A few notes on these comparisons are noted on this page in the
                            additional comments section.

                            [Simunovic] The FEV Low Development vehicle study has been reviewed
                            following the instructions by the US EPA. It has been found that the FEV
                            study followed most of the current technical guidelines and the state-of-
                            the-art practices for computational crash simulation and design. Several
                            inconsistencies were found in the developed  FEM models that need to be
                            addressed and corrected before the FEM models are released for the
                            general use.
                                                                    values since we could not reasonable assess injury
                                                                    criteria without having additional interior/ restrain
                                                                    system information.


                                                                    The inconsistencies that were highlighted during
                                                                    the review have been corrected. The
                                                                    recommendations are incorporated into the final
                                                                    report.
If you have access to FMVSS
crash setups to run the model
under different scenarios in
LS-DYNA, are you able to
validate the FEV/EDAG design
and results?  In addition,
please comment on the AVI
files provided.
[Joost] N/A

[Richman]

[OSU]
Tony Luscher
This reviewer has expertise in crash simulation. However due to time
constraints the model was not run under different scenarios in LS-DYNA. No
AVI files were found.
If you are aware of better
methods and tools employed
and documented elsewhere
to help validate advanced
materials and design
engineering rigor for 2017-
2020 vehicles, please suggest
how they might be used to
improve the study.
[Joost] N/A

[Richman]
Methods and tools were appropriate.
[OSU]
Tony Luscher
None found.
                                                                                                                                      Draft 36
 image: 








ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU]

Kristina Kennedy
"Bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable performance (when replacing with HSS)".
This is an "of course" comment, right? HSS would absolutely produce worse results when replacing steel.
These results were expected, correct?
Tony Luscher
The caption on Figures 1.8.13 to 1.8.14 state that they are at 100 Ms although the previous paragraph lists
them as occurring at 80 Ms. The muffler deformation looks quite different in Figure 1.8.14.

Figure 1.8.33 is unclear and cannot be seen.
The bending and torsional values were deemed
acceptable in the model. The project was based on
developing a correlated NVH baseline model and
from this model all future iterations needed to be
within 5%. These models reflect this. The
difference in stiffness values seen between the
baseline and the optimized model is a function of
the optimization parameters, to be within 5%, then
the impact of using HSS.  Replacing mild steel with
HSS does not affect the modulus of elasticity of
structure. Through additional design iterations or
changes in the optimization parameters the
performance of the structure could have been
maintained with the use of HSS materials.
The frontal impact analyses were run for 80 Ms.
The captions were corrected in the final report.
Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash
behaviors were analyzed and compared to the
deformation modes of the photographs of the
actual test. Figures 1.8.9 to 1.8.14 show different
views of the comparative deformation mode at 80
Ms (end of crash). From the comparison of the
deformation modes, it can be observed the EDAG
baseline model shows similar deformation modes.
While the deformation is not identical to what is
                                                                                                                                       Draft 37
 image: 








seen in the photographs, it was felt the baseline
model did represent a reasonable comparison to
the actual test and was acceptable for the baseline
and for use in all future comparisons.
                                       Draft 38
 image: 








   4.  VEHICLE
       MANUFACTURING
       COST
       METHODOLOGICAL
       RIGOR (CAEBIW and
       Vehicle)
                              COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Please comment on the
methods used to analyze the
mass-reduced vehicle body
structure's manufacturing
costs.
[Joost] Overall, the costing methods used in this study seem to be very
thorough. The details of the approach provide considerable credibility to the
cost estimates, however there will always be concerns regarding the accuracy
of cost models for systems where a complete,  detailed engineering design has
not been established. I believe that this report does a good job of
representing the cost penalties/benefits of the technologies but I would still
anticipate negative response from industry. There a few examples where I
believe that the cost was underestimated or where additional data could be
helpful in corroborating the results:

The engine  cost comparison suggests that the  2.4L engine will cost less than
the 2.71 engine due to reduced material content (smaller engine). The analysis
goes on to say that the remaining costs (manufacturing, install, etc.) would be
about the same for both engines. This seems credible, but is it possible to
compare the price of both engine types as well? It may be possible to find
prices for both of these engines from a Toyota dealer, and while price is
certainly different than cost, it would be helpful in establishing that the cost
differential  estimate is reasonably accurate.
                             Regarding the cylinder head subsystem (pg. 211), the report notes that a
                             switch from Mg to plastic for the head covers introduces engineering
                             challenges related to the cam phaser circuitry. While the report identifies two
                                                                                                    Engine assembly service costs were collected from 3
                                                                                                    different sources for both engines.

                                                                                                    Average 2.71 service cost = $10,763

                                                                                                    Average 2.4L service cost = $9,023

                                                                                                    These costs were scaled based on historical cost data,
                                                                                                    resulting in estimated savings of $230. The
                                                                                                    magnitude of savings using this method seems to
                                                                                                    include other factors. For this reason FEV chose to
                                                                                                    use the material content method as stated in the
                                                                                                    white paper.
                                                                        Included in the plastic cam cover cost and mass build
                                                                        up are bolt-on aluminum housing that integrates the
                                                                        phaser control valve and plumbing circuitry.  The
                                                                                                                                           Draft 39
 image: 








production examples of this change, these are for high cost engines. It seems
unlikely that the designs would achieve the quoted cost savings given that this
has only been applied to high cost engines and there are recognized
difficulties in the engineering/design.

Regarding the body redesign, the estimated cost increase due to materials
and manufacturing ($231.43, pg. 333) for a weight savings of 67.7kg produces
a weight reduction penalty of about $3.42/kg-saved which seems appropriate
for the materials and assembly processes suggested in the report.

I don't find the cost estimates for the seats to be credible (pg. 378). If it's
possible to reduce the weight of the seats (which represent a significant
portion of vehicle weight) while saving significant cost, why would there be
any steel seats in production? These are  "bolt on" parts that are provided to
the OEMs  by suppliers so this would be a relatively easy change to make if the
cost/weight trade-off shown in this report is true. The report should, at the
very least, address why these kinds of seats are not more prevalent in current
vehicles.
plastic cam cover would seal around the bolt-on
housing.  With detailed design work, an alternative
would be a cylinder head with integrated control
valve housing.
There are magnesium and plastic seat frames in some
production vehicles today. Some seat suppliers have
been reluctant to the changeover due to a few
different reasons; they might have their own
stamping facility and assembly equipment that has
been paid for through many years of seat production,
so to change over would be too costly. Or the cost
fluctuation of plastic and Mg and other lightweight
materials are too volatile: Mg was over $6 per kg in
2008, as low as $2.1 in 2007, and today it's at $3.1.
Also some seat suppliers are not concerned with
weight over cost. Companies like Ford are now pulling
seat design in-house to get better control over the
design and build of more light-weight seats. As new
seat suppliers emerge with proven light-weight seat
technologies and manufacturing processes, the
thought process will change. In the Venza study,
steel-to-mag seat frames were a considerable  cost
increase: for the front drivers and passengers seat
frames the cost per kg was in increase of $1.53 per kg
and an average $9 cost increase per front seat. With
other added weight saving ideas, the cost was
brought down  to show an overall seat cost and weight
savings. Carry over seat construction is another
reason that new technologies are not being used. The
cost of design and testing can add considerable costs.
So, with all of the issues combined, who would
                                                                                                              Draft 40
 image: 








Why is there a cost savings for the front axle hub (pg. 555)? If you are
proposing to scallop the hub during forging then you will still need the same
amount of input material - some of it will be removed during scalloping, but
you will not get a cost savings. Also, it's not made explicitly clear that the
current hub is forged. If you are proposing to move from a cast hub to a
forged hub then the cost will most certainly increase. If the cost savings here
is due to the estimated weight savings in the final part (i.e., pay for less
material) then this indicates that the model is not correctly capturing the yield
from the process.

[Richman]
Body structure mass optimization was conducted  by EDAG.  Body structure
was not altered form the baseline structure. Mass optimization process
examined an appropriate range of material types, grades and gauges.
Material properties used appear valid for the respective materials and grades.
NVH and collision performance results appear consistent and logical with no
significant dis-continuities of inconsistencies. In general the process used is
excellent and the results appear realistic and valid.

[OSU]
Tony Luscher
Mass reduction was analyzed first on a system level and then by a component
level basis. Mass reduction concepts were based upon a very comprehensive
literature review of new materials and manufacturing processes and
alternative designs ideas that appear in the open literature and at trade
shows. An assessment of these was made in terms of technological readiness,
fitness for use in mass production, risk, and cost. In addition there were
                                                                        change? The OEMs have to drive change, and as
                                                                        weight becomes more of an issue to them, they will
                                                                        drive change to the suppliers.
Change statement in report section F.6.4.1

The assumption is the hub is forged in scallop feature
without additional scalloping process. Scalloped hubs
(Image F.6-3) allow for material mass savings with no
cost impact, since the material is removed during the
forging process.
                                                                                                              Draft 41
 image: 








                             consultation with industry and experts.

                             [Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
Please describe the extent to
which state-of-the-art costing
methods have been employed
as well as the extent to which
the associated analysis
exhibits strong technical rigor.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
Costing models are thorough covering all elements of total production cost
(material, processing, equipment, tooling, freight, packaging ...). Baseline cost
model was calibrated to baseline vehicle cost projection. The basic model is
complete and sound.

Cost estimates for mass reduction technologies are the result of a rigorous
engineering process utilizing benchmarking data, material and component
costs from suppliers and detailed analysis of manufacturing costs. Sound
creative engineering analysis was used to scale product cost to this specific
vehicle application. Accuracy of new technology cost estimates is dependent
on the knowledge, skill, experience and engineering judgment of the
individuals making the estimates.  Munro Associates conducted this segment
of the project. Munro is a highly respected organization with strong
qualifications in product cost analysis. It is reasonable to assume cost
estimates in this study are valid estimates for the mass reduction
technologies.

One area of cost estimate concern is reduced mass sheet products. In this
area, material and equipment costs  attributed to the reduced mass
technologies are significantly higher than actual  production experience would
support. Source of the discrepancy  is not clear form the information in the
project review documents.
                             [OSU]
                             Tony Luscher
                             The impact of costs, associated with mass reduction, was evaluated using
                             FEV's methodology and tools as previously employed on prior powertrain
Vehicle Closure Al cost: The vehicle closure aluminum
cost in the final EDAG report reflected the revised
material cost for sheet aluminum. The cost was
reduced from $4.83/kg in the initial  draft of the
report to $4.46/kg in the final report. This value is
consistent with the cost utilized for sheet aluminum
in the NHTSA paper and (at this level the peer
reviewer felt), while it was on the high end of the cost
scale, was within explainable / acceptable limits.
                                                                                                                                            Draft 42
 image: 








                            analyses for EPA. Cost reduction assumptions are clearly laid out and are
                            reasonable. The report does a good job of realizing the inherent challenges
                            and risks in applying any new technology, let alone lightweight technology, to
                            a vehicle platform.  FEV describes the component interactions both positive
                            and negative in its recommendations.

                            The actual values  in the EXCEL files were not checked.

                            [Simunovic] This  is not my area of expertise.
If you are aware of better
methods and tools employed
and documented elsewhere
to help estimate costs for
advanced vehicle materials
and design for 2017-2020
vehicles, please suggest how
they might be used to
improve this study.
[Joost] This is not my area of expertise.

[Richman]
Process methodology and execution used is one of the best this reviewer has
seen.
[OSU]
Tony Luscher
None found.

[Simunovic] This is not my area of expertise.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[Joost] The change from a cast Al engine block with cast Fe liners to a cast-over Mg/AI hybrid with PWTA
coated cylinders is very interesting, but the cost penalty estimate seems low relative to what I would expect.
Previous work exploring the use of Mg intensive engines (which did not include the added complexity of cast-
in Al liners) suggests a cost penalty of $3.89 per pound saved (see
http://wwwl.eere.energv.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/lm 08/3 automotive metals-cast.pdf report B) versus
this report which suggests a cost penalty of $3.51 per kilogram saved, about half as expensive. The cited study
was performed on a 2.5 L engine, comparable to  the Venza. The primary difference is that the Venza study
includes downsizing which would save on material costs, but I'm not confident that the savings would be as
substantial as indicated in this report. It seems that something has been underestimated.
                                                                       The Magnesium Powertrain Cast Components Project
                                                                       is a jointly sponsored effort by the US Department of
                                                                       Energy and the US Council for Automotive Research
                                                                       to determine the feasibility and practicality of
                                                                       producing a magnesium-intensive engine.
                                                                       Participants in the study include Ford, GM, and
                                                                       Chrysler as well as a variety of automotive suppliers.

                                                                       FEV consulted with Bob R. Powell to understand the
                                                                       preliminary results of the MPCCP project.  Project
                                                                       completion  and final report are not expected until the
                                                                       fall of 2012.

                                                                       The cost increased slightly more due to FEV
                                                                       underestimated the cost of the inclusion of all -

                                                                                                             Draft 43
 image: 








aluminum fasteners. Based on MPCCP meeting with
DOE project representative, the following changes
were made in our assumptions to line up with MPCCP
study:

       1. 7% scrap factor was added for Mg die
       casting process (MPCCP die casting data)

       2. 5% scrap factor  added for over-molding
difficulty

        3. Mg cylinder block cost/kg was recalculated
assuming  spray in  cylinder liners  on  the  base
aluminum engine  block  (MPCCP  Assumption). After
the changes were  implemented, engine block $/kg
changed  to  a $5.207  cost  hit,  whereas prior peer
review the $/kg was a $4.063 cost hit. MPCCP study
did not include cylinder liners weight impact in their
cylinder block calculation. By taking out the cylinder
liner weight save, the Cylinder Block $/kg (Mg engine
block only) after peer review = $8.08 cost hit,  MPCCP
Mg engine block $/kg = $3.89/lb*2.205 = $8.58 cost
increase.
                                      Draft 44
 image: 








There are several examples where a cost savings has been calculated by reducing the size of a component,
despite using more expensive material. For example the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield subsystem shows a
savings for the caliper subsystem and a modest increase in the cost of the rotor and shield. Some of the cost
savings here is due to reducing the size of the system (scaling to the 2008 Toyota Prius). However, there would
still be a weight savings (albeit lower) if the conventional cast iron materials were used and downsized to the
2008 Toyota Prius - this is the likely outcome in a real automotive environment. Given the option to choose a
more expensive, exotic, untested system that saves significant weight versus a conventional low cost system
that saves less weight, it seems like an OEM would choose the conventional solution. In this case the
suggested weight savings are technically possible but would never happen in a practical automotive
environment.
[OSU]
Kristina Kennedy
Table 1.7.1: NVH Results Summary. The "Weight Test Condition" and "Weight BIW" are ALSO outside of limits
(> 5%), but not noted in results. Only those highlighted in red are noted as "failures". All failures (> 5%)
should be called out specifically since that was their target.
Tony Luscher
There are many typos and fragmented sentences in these sections. These should be corrected. Bookmark
The proposed changes of possible AI/MMC have been
changed back to a cast iron material due to the
application not being previously validated in  high-
volume production but instead in only lower volume
vehicle applications.  The caliper were not changed to
an exotic material but were instead changed from
cast iron to a cast Al. A material that has been
utilized in this specific vehicle application for decades
and has been  mass produced by nearly all OEM
manufacturers in one model or another.
The categories of "Weight Test Condition" and
"Weight BIW" do not represent performance
categories of the structure, but rather provide the
mass of the structure being tested along with the
mass of the BIW. The NVH testing includes the BIW
weight and all fixed glass. The value shown for
"Weight Test Condition and Weight BIW" was
provided for reference only. The 5% limit was used
for establishing the acceptability of the structure
when comparing the NVH performance level of the
structure for the multiple material iterations. The 5%
limit was used in judging the NVH performance of the
structure for both static and dynamic modes. The
rational for the 5% target was based on the typical
range of variability seen in testing multiple structures
of the same design.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 45
 image: 








references do not all work.
Corrected in Report
                                                                                                                                             Draft 46
 image: 








    5.  CONCLUSION AND
       FINDINGS
                             COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Are the study's conclusions
adequately backed up by the
methods and analytical rigor
of the study?
[Joost] Yes. I identified various areas where the analysis or report could be
improved, but overall the methods used here provide a credible and
reasonable estimate of the potential for weight savings. Based on some of
my earlier comments I would expect that actual costs to be somewhat higher
than predicted in this study.  Additionally, real vehicles share components
across platforms so using vehicle-specific components would add additional
cost. It is possible that the cost curve would cross $0/lb-saved at a lower
total weight savings than suggested here.

[Richman]
Study conclusions and findings are well supported by the analytical rigor,
tools used and expertise of the organizations involved.

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
At the time of review, Section G "Conclusions and Recommendations" is
unavailable. We hope that in this section FEV will point out the most
promising actions that auto makers may take to reduce mass while
conserving cost.
Tony Luscher
The report's conclusions are based on sound engineering principals of good
rigor.
                                                                                                 Added in report section G
Are the conclusions about
the design, development,
validation, and cost of the
mass-reduced design valid?
[Joost] Yes. As above, there is reason to believe that the true cost will be
higher than predicted here, but I think this analysis provides a useful
estimate.

[Richman]
Design development and validation conclusions are well supported in this
study. Cost model is valid and cost conclusions are generally realistic.  There
appears to be a systematic discrepancy in  cost modeling of low mass sheet
products. This discrepancy has a minor impact on conclusions of this study.
                                                                                                                                        Draft 47
 image: 








                            [OSU]
                            Glenn Daehn
                            This study is carefully crafted with excellent attention to engineering detail.
                            It is important to note that the overall environment for vehicle design,
                            manufacture and use is continually changing. See the "Additional
                            Comments" section of this document for further development of the
                            implications of this.

                            Tony Luscher
                            This reviewer found the overall work to be thorough and well  documented.
                            Therefore the conclusions are well supported and validated by the
                            engineering and modeling in the report.
Are you aware of other
available research that
better evaluates and
validates the technical
potential for mass-reduced
vehicles in the 2017-2020
timeframe?
[Joost] I have not seen a report as thorough as this. There are several
examples of resources that provide useful information regarding weight
reduction potential such as
Cheah, LW. Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger
Vehicle Weight Reduction in the U.S.
Joshi, A.M. Optimizing Battery Sizing and Vehicle Light weighting for an
Extended Range Electric Vehicle
Lutsey, N. Review of technical literature and trends related to automobile
mass-reduction technology

[Richman]
This reviewer has monitored automotive mass reduction studies in North
America and Europe for several years.  This study is the best evaluation of
mass reduction opportunities and associated costs this reviewer has seen.

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
                           There are no more comprehensive or detailed studies that we are aware of.
                           This is an excellent compilation of ideas for practical vehicle mass reduction
                           and fuel efficiency improvement.

                           Tony Luscher
                           None found.
                                                                                                                                        Draft 48
 image: 








ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
The study does an excellent job within its scope. As this reviewer sees the scope, the driving question is:
Can a well-engineered relatively modern vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza) have its mass reduced by 20% or
more, without significant cost penalty and while maintaining crashworthiness. The answer to that question
is a clear "YES".  Further, this conclusion is backed with  rigor and attention to detail. This is in my mind,
very clear, well-done and technically rigorous.

This reviewer believes that there are a few other important questions that were not asked. These include:

1) Will the proposed changes in design pose any other important risks in manufacture or use? This can
include: warranty exposure, durability, increased noise, vibration and harshness, maintenance concerns,
etc., etc.

2) Will increasing regulatory constraints and/or consumer expectations require increases in vehicle mass,
opposing the mass reductions provided by the improved practices outlined in  this study?

Both these issues will make vehicle light weighting more difficult than this report suggests.  With respect to
issue 1)  there are a number of materials and design  substitutions that may produce concerns with
durability, manufacturability and warranty claims. For example when substituting polymers for metals,
there are new environmental embrittlement modes that may cause failure and warranty claims. Also, if
substituting aluminum for steel, multi-material connections may cause galvanic corrosion problems. When
using thinner sheets of higher strength steel, formability may be reduced and  springback may be more
problematic. Both these issues may preclude the use of the stronger material with a similar design and may
also increase the time and cost  involved with die development. Lastly there are always risks in any new
design.  For example, when using new brake designs, pad wear and squeal may be more pronounced. All of
these issues  may cause a manufacturer to avoid the new technology.

There are also local constrains on material thicknesses that are outside this review methodology. For
example while a roof rail may meet crash and stiffness criteria, it may deflect excessively or permanently if
a 99th percentile male pulls on it exiting a vehicle.  Similarly, parking lot and hail dents may require greater
thickness gauges than this study may indicate.
The problem of vehicle light-weighting and improved fuel economy is seen here through the lens as being
The statement will be found in report section C.I
No impact to vehicle mass. This is outside the scope
of this study.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 49
 image: 








an engineering problem to be solved. And in many ways it is. However, the forces of consumer
expectations and behaviors are an essential part of the problem. As an interesting anecdote, the Model T
Ford had a fuel economy of about 20 MPG, very similar to the average fuel economy of vehicles on the road
today.  No modern consumer would choose a Model T for many obvious reasons.  Our cars have become
extensions of our living rooms with many electrical motors driving windows, mirrors, seats and complex and
costly HVAC and infotainment systems. All of these systems add weight, complexity and use power.
Further increased complexity of engines to improve emissions and increase fuel economy  has increased
engine mass.

This study shows that with good engineering we can reduce vehicle mass of an existing vehicle by 20% with
little to no increased cost or adverse consumer reaction.  Based on our current course, it is just as likely this
benefit will be taken by improved mandated safety and emission features as well as improved creature
comforts.

Much can be gained through enlightened consumer behavior (assuming the average consumer wants to
reduce energy use and carbon footprint). While much of this is outside the scope of this report, in
particular it would be useful if the average consumer would understand the lifecycle environmental impacts
of vehicle choice and of varied vehicle design, and would adopt a 'less is more' ethic and see their
transportation systems as that, simply transportation. A more minimalist ethic that would move against
increasing vehicle size and the creep of multiple motors for seats, mirrors, windows, etc., would reduce
acquisition cost, maintenance cost and energy cost.  This is in addition, of course, to the usual advice to
reduce fuel consumption (limit trips, limit speed, tire pressure, carpooling, etc. etc.) is still valuable.

It should also be noted that there are other potentially low-cost actions that can be easily  adopted to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce dependence on foreign oil. One of these is widespread
adoption of natural gas fuels for personal transportation. Use of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), has lower
fuel cost than gasoline, produces less pollution and greenhouse gas emission per energy used, and requires
only very modest changes to conventional vehicle architecture, with no significant increases in complexity.
The cost and size of a CNG tank and the development of refueling infrastructure are the main barriers to
adoption of a technology that could have important and positive societal benefits.

This is an excellent and useful study. It is important however to recognize the limitations of purely
engineering solutions. And even within the engineering realm, there are  many reasons that the
implementation of the solutions in this paper study will require much effort to become part of mainstream
automobiles.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 50
 image: 








Kristina Kennedy
With respect to measuring powertrain CG and moment of inertia, notes "oscillation as an undamped"
condition. Just confirming, this means no dynamic dampers were used in the engine room modeling? Is
this realistic? Acceptable practice?
The entire powertrain-engine assembly is treated
as a rigid body and this is reflected in the FE
modeling.  The influence of dynamic damping is not
considered critical when comparing models for this
analysis. Therefore, this approach was considered
acceptable.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 51
 image: 








    6.  OTHER POTENTIAL
       AREAS FOR
       COMMENT
                              COMMENTS
RESPONSE
Has the study made
substantial improvements
over previous available
works in the ability to
understand the feasibility
of 2017-2020 mass-
reduction technology for
light-duty vehicles? If so,
please describe.
[Joost] Yes. Other studies have reviewed the mass saving potential of various
technologies individually, or imagined the impact of combining many
technologies. However I am not aware of a design study that takes an existing
vehicle and assesses each piece with the thoroughness used here.

[Richman]
Yes.  Overall objectives) of the project (20% mass reduction, less than 10% cost
increase) are timely and consistent with industry interests in the short term.

Retaining the OEM  designed and field proven body structure eliminates
uncertainty related to evaluation of novel and un-proven structures.  This
analysis clearly identifies body mass reduction achievable with new and near
term future grades  of HSS and AHSS.

An exhaustive list of non-body mass reduction concepts are evaluated in this
study. Some of these technologies are well known and understood in the
industry, other are  new, creative and innovative.  Each technology is reviewed
from an engineering and cost perspective and scaled to the specific application.
The technology selection process was analytical, rigorous and un-biased.
Majority of technologies selected are appropriate for the mass reduction and
cost objectives of the project.  This information  provides helpful  information to
industry engineers considering mass reduction alternatives for other vehicle
programs.

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
                          Without question.  The only similar study also targeted the Venza. This
                          provides much additional analysis and many additional ideas beyond the Lotus
                          study.

                          Tony Luscher
                                                                                                                                        Draft 52
 image: 








                          The major contribution of this study was to pull together and evaluate all of
                          the current proven concepts that are applicable to a lightweight vehicle in the
                          2017-2020 timeframe. It is successful in this regard.
Do the study design
concepts have critical
deficiencies in its
applicability for 2017-2020
mass-reduction feasibility
for which revisions should
be made before the report
is finalized?  If so, please
describe.
[Joost] No - I would not say that any deficiencies here are "critical".
Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by 2017-20.

[Richman]
Major findings of the project appear practical for implementation by 2017-20.

Two technologies selected for inclusion in the final vehicle concept appear
"speculative" for 2017-20: Co-cast magnesium/aluminum block and MMC
brake rotors.  Both technologies are identified as "D" level for implementation.

Designing, developing and establishing production capacity for a new engine
block is a time consuming and costly process.  Investments would be required
by OEM manufactures and casting suppliers.  It is not clear the level of human
resources and capital investment required for this technology could be justified
the basis  of the mass reduction  potential of (7 Kg).

Aluminum MMC brake rotors were selected for inclusion in the final vehicle
configuration. In the judgment  of this reviewer, this technology is the most
speculative technology selected for the final vehicle configuration. MMC
rotors have been in development for over 25 years. Development experience
with these rotors has generally  not been acceptable for typical customer
service. The minimum mass MMC rotor design selected in this project is a
radical (by automotive standards) multi piece bolted composite design with an
MMC rotor disc.  This design is identified as a "D" rated technology and a mass
savings of 9 Kg. The aluminum MMC portion of the mas reduced rotor
assembly would be regarded as  "speculative" at this time.

Cost models used to assess low  mass sheet product may have some
questionable assumptions.  For  this project, adjustment in the cost model is
unlikely to influence he material selection process. Correction in this area
                                                                                                  This is a reasonable concern as justification would
                                                                                                  likely have to assume this technology and
                                                                                                  investment would benefit future engines and
                                                                                                  provide a strategic advantage for the OEM willing
                                                                                                  to take the investment risk.
                                                                                                  The proposed changes of a possible AI/MMC rotor
                                                                                                  have been changed back to a cast iron material due
                                                                                                  to the application not being previously validated in
                                                                                                  high-volume production, but instead in only lower
                                                                                                  volume vehicle applications. Given more time and
                                                                                                  high volume manufacturing development beyond
                                                                                                  2017, this technology could be considered again for
                                                                                                  future applications as it continues its development.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 53
 image: 








                         would have a greater impact on technology screening and selection to achieve
                         mass reductions above 20%.
                         [OSU]
                         Glenn Daehn
                         Conclusions and recommendations section is missing. This is an important
                         opportunity to reinforce the most important actions that automakers can take.

                         The report still lacks the ability to trace some technical details all the way back
                         to the source.  This is described previously.
                                                                                                 Add in report section G
                                                                       Updated in report
Are there fundamentally
different lightweight
vehicle design
technologies that you
expect to be much more
common (either in
addition to or instead of)
than the one Lotus has
assessed for the 2017-
2020 timeframe (Low
Development)?
[Joost] Not in the 2017-2020 time frame. Switching to an advanced steel
dominant body with a few instances of Mg and Al seems appropriate for the
time frame. The considerable use of lightweight plastics is also in line with my
expectations for available technology in this time frame.

[Richman]
No. The result of his study is a logical and cost effective advancement in the
development of more efficient passenger vehicles for the 2017-20 time frames.

 [OSU]
Glenn Daehn
It seems apparent that vehicles are moving more and more to multi-materials
construction and as we move away from steel-based construction, joined
primarily by resistance spot welds, there will be need for additional joining
technologies. Laser welding is mentioned as one possible replacement for
resistance spot welds, but it is expected that over time there will be much
more use of structural adhesives, self-piercing rivets, conformal joints and
other joining strategies for the BIW.
                                                                                                                                       Draft 54
 image: 








Are there any other areas
outside of the direct scope
of the analysis (e.g.,
vehicle performance,
durability, drive ability,
noise, vibration, and
hardness) for which the
mass-reduced vehicle
design is likely to exhibit
any compromise from the
baseline vehicle?
[Joost] All of the areas listed here are somewhat concerning, but given the
switch to fairly conventional materials I  believe that durability, drivability, and
NVH should be not be a significant issue. Detailed analysis work in these areas
would likely require some redesign which may add cost or weight, but I don't
think it would be overwhelming.

[Richman]
None identified by this reviewer.

[OSU]
Glenn Daehn
Yes.  There are many other details with  respect to nuances of customer
expectations, durability, warranty risks and manufacturability that are
discussed elsewhere in this review. This does not diminish the importance of
this great work. Just points out there are an enormous amount of detailed
work required to build an automobile, and the job is not finished.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

[OSU]
Kristina Kennedy
Overall, well-written and well-done...my conclusion (which they also reached) is YES, NVH WILL SUFFER
when replacing steel with HSS and will OF COURSE make the vehicle MORE STIFF.

[Simunovic]
The FEV report is quite exhaustive. I would suggest that it be released in a hypertext format that can allow
different navigation paths through  it. Also, the dynamic Web-based technologies can be used for effective
model documentation, presentation and distribution. I would also recommend that more details on the
actual optimization process, including the objective function specification, and the final consolidation of the
model, be added to the documentation.
                                                                        Links for all reference material are captured
                                                                        throughout the report. They are not hyperlinked.
                                                                        All cost sheets are in a folder structure at EPA
                                                                        website.
                                                                                                                                         Draft 55
 image: 








4.  References




FEV. Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle. 2012.
 image: 








                           Analysis Report Review

Report Title:      Light-Duty  Vehicle  Mass Reduction and Cost
                     Analysis - Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle
Report Number:  07-069-303
   This Analysis Report has been reviewed and complies with the quality assurance procedures of
   FEV, Inc.

   Q The Analysis Report is adequate for delivery to the customer.

(Signature)
Print
Title:
Name: Patrick Hupperich
Vice President
Date:
^^^^ '
(Signature)
Print Name: Greg Kolwich
Title: Manager, Value Engineering
Date: 02/1 4/20 12
          Munro
           &
          Associates, Inc.
   QUALITY RECORD Doc. # T-04-09  Rev. B  Date: 02/08/08
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                  Summary Page 1
Project: Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis
Task:   EPA Contract EP-C-07-069 WAS-3
Project #: 07-069-303
Date:     02/14/12
Client:   United Stated Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Cheryl Caffrey	
Subject/Objectives:  The  primary objective  of this contract is  continue  the  design
concepts of the 2010  ICCT report of the Low Development concept vehicle with 20%
vehicle  mass reduction along with other recent relevant studies. The  contractor  should
continue the work started on ICCT's research building on the original assessments to
prove concept, cost effectiveness and feasibility, manufacturability and crashworthiness
that can, at minimum, meet the performance functions (as defined in Scope of Work) of
the original baseline vehicle (2009 Venza) while controlling for both variable and in-
direct cost to maintain affordability (as defined in cost section of SOW). Specifically, the
contractor shall use advanced  design, material  and manufacturing processes that will
likely be available in  the time  frame of the 2017 model year  and beyond for the Low
Development concept vehicle  to  optimize  and  develop  an  engineering design with
sufficient details  such that computer  modeling  can  be performed to demonstrate
crashworthiness of the vehicle concept in addition to detailed incremental cost estimate
for the  design, including both  detailed  direct (piece) and indirect cost estimates. The
Contractor  shall assist EPA in discussions with other parties and agencies on this study
and document it in the 2017+ NPRM and final rule if necessary.
Method/Solution: Engineering expertise and state-of-art computer modeling, employed
on selected vehicle subsystems, was utilized to generate potential mass reduction ideas for
a production stock 2010 Toyota Venza. The target vehicle mass reduction was 20% or
approximately  340kg.   Selected  advanced,   alternative,  designs,   materials  and
manufacturing  processes  were  based upon a  comprehensive literature  review and
consultation with industry and experts.

In addition to  mass-reduction calculations the impact  of costs,  associated with mass
reduction, were also evaluated using FEV's detailed and transparent costing methodology
and tools. These are the same tools  and processed FEV employed on prior powertrain
analyses for EPA
 image: 








                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                               Summary Page 2
Summary/Results: Revision Date 03/25/2012
Calculated Vehicle Mass Reduction: 316.78 kg
Percent Vehicle Mass Reduction: 18.51% (1711kg Baseline Vehicle Mass)
Calculated Cost Impact for Mass Reduction: $ 92.04 Decrease
Average Cost Per Kilogram: $0.29 Save/Kilogram
Notes:
   (1) Mass reduction ideas require packaging, function and performance validation on
      an application by application basis.
   (2) Mass reduction ideas are developed on a subsystem by subsystem basis. As a
      result the synergistic affect relative to vehicle performance and potential
      degradation was not evaluated.
   (3) Costs presented are direct manufacturing costs
   (4) Costs do not include indirect cost factors (e.g. OEM SG&A, ED&T, Tooling,  etc.)
   (5) Costs are calculated using an established set of boundary conditions (e.g. mass
      production volumes, competitive market place, mature technology, etc.)
   (6) Mass reduction ideas are	
Conclusions/Recommendations:
   (1) Establish development plan to validate all the proposed technologies
   (2) Perhaps this can be a joint effort between the private and public sector.	
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 07-069-303
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                    Page 1
   Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize
                        Crossover Utility Vehicle

                       Analysis Report BAV 07-069-303 (3/3)
                                             ^^f

             DRAFT VERSION - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
                              Prepared for:
                              Cheryl Caffrey
              United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
                            2000 Traverwood Dr.
                            Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
                             Submitted by:

                              Greg Kolwich
                                 FEV, Inc.
                           4554 Glenmeade Lane
                           Auburn Hills, Ml 48326
                       Phone: (248) 373-6000 ext. 2411
                           Email: kolwich(S)fev.com
                              March 30, 2012
       Munro
        &
       Associates, Inc.
QUALITY RECORD Doc. # T-04-09  Rev. B  Date: 02/08/08
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 2
                                Contents

Section                                                             Page
A.   Executive Summary                                             31
B.   Introduction                                                     35
  B.1    Project Overview                                              35
     B.1.1    Background for Studying Mass-Reduction                        35
     B.1.2    Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 1, Background Information      36
     B.1.3    Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 2, Purpose and Objectives      38
     B.1.4    Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Process Overview              40
C.   Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Assumptions               41
  C.1    Mass-Reduction Analysis Assumptions                          41
  C.2    Cost Analysis Assumptions                                     43
D.   Mass Reduction Analysis Methodology                         47
  D.1    Overview of Methodology                                       47
  D.2    Project Task One - Non Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and
  Cost Analysis                                                       48
     D.2.1    Baseline Vehicle Finger Printing                                48
     D.2.2    Mass-Reduction Idea Generation                               50
     D.2.3    Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Estimates                  53
     D.2.4    Mass-Reduction and Cost Optimization Process                  55
     D.2.5    Detailed Mass-Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis             61
  D.3    Project Task Two - Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and
  Cost Analysis                                                       63
     D.3.1    Introduction                                                63
  D.4    Body System CAE Evaluation Process                           64
  D.5   Vehicle Teardown                                             65
  D.6   Vehicle Scanning                                              67
  D.7    Initial FE Model                                               68
     D.7.1    Material Data                                               69
 image: 








                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 3
  D.7.2    FE Modeling from Scan Data                                     69
D.8    FEA Model Validation—Baseline NVH Model                         72
  D.8.1    Model Statistics                                                 73
     D.8.1.1    Static Bending Stiffness                                     74
     D.8.1.2    Static Torsion Stiffness                                     74
     D.8.1.3    Modal Frequency                                          75
  D.8.2    FE Model Validation                                             75
  D.8.3    Step I: NVH Test Setup                                          76
     D.8.3.1    . Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup                         76
     D.8.3.2    Static Torsional Stiffness Test Setup                         78
     D.8.3.3    Dynamic Modal Test Setup                                 79
  D.8.4    Step II: Construction and Correlation of NVH Model                  80
  D.8.5    NVH Correlation Summary                                       80
  D.8.6    Step III: EDAG CAE Baseline Model                               81
D.9    Lotus Results Validation                                           82
D.10   Baseline Crash Model                                             85
  D.10.1   Model Building                                                  86
     D.10.1.1   Major System for Full Vehicle Model                        86
     D.10.1.2   Mass Validation                                            88
  D.10.2   Powertrain Mass & Inertia Calibration Test                         88
     D.10.2.1   Measuring Powertrain CG & Moment of Inertia              88
  Baseline Crash Model Set-up                                             90
  D.10.3   Baseline Crash Model Evaluation                                 92
     D.10.3.1   I. FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)      92
       D.10.3.1.1  Model Setup                                            92
       D.10.3.1.2  Deformation Mode Comparison                           93
       D.10.3.1.3  Body Pulse Comparison                                  96
       Figure D-20: Location of vehicle pulse measurement                     97
       Figure D-21: Body Pulse: CAE Baseline Model vs. Test                  98
       D. 10.3.1.4  Dynamic Crush and Intrusions                             98
 image: 








                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                      Page 4
         Image D-32: Initial Crush Space                                      99
       D.10.3.2   II. FMVSS 214—38.5MPH MDB Side Impact               101
         D. 10.3.2.1  Model Setup                                          101
         D.10.3.2.2  Deformation Mode Comparison                          102
         Image D-34: Side Impact: Pre-Crash                                 102
         D.10.3.2.3  Intrusion Comparison                                   104
     D.10.4   Baseline Crash Results                                        105
       D.10.4.1   I. FMVSS 208—35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)     106
       D.10.4.2   II. Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro
       NCAP/IIHS)                                                      106
         D. 10.4.2.1  Model Setup                                          106
         D. 10.4.2.2  Deformation Mode                                     107
         D.10.4.2.3  Body Pulse, Dynamic Crush, and Intrusion                 109
       D.10.4.3   III. FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB Side Impact              114
       D.10.4.4   IV. FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact               114
         D. 10.4.4.1  Model Setup                                          114
         D. 10.4.4.2  Deformation Mode                                     115
         D. 10.4.4.3  Fuel Tank Integration                                   118
         D. 10.4.4.4  Structural Deformation                                 119
       D.10.4.5   V. FMVSS 216a Roof Crush Resistance                     121
         D. 10.4.5.1  Model Setup                                          121
         D. 10.4.5.2  Deformation Mode                                     122
         D. 10.4.5.3  Structural Strength                                     123
E.   Cost Analysis Methodology                                      126
  E.1    Overview of Costing Methodology                                126
  E.2    Teardown, Process Mapping, and Costing                         126
     E.2.1    Cost Methodology Fundamentals                                126
     E.2.2    Serial and Parallel Manufacturing Operations and Processes        129
  E.3    Cost Model Overview                                            132
  E.4    Indirect OEM Costs                                              134
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                    Page 5
E.5    Costing Databases                                              135
  E.5.1    Database Overview                                           135
  E.5.2    Material Database                                            135
     E.5.2.1     Overview                                               135
     E.5.2.2     Material Selection Process                                135
     E.5.2.3     Pricing Sources and Considerations                        136
     E.5.2.4     In-process Scrap                                         137
     E.5.2.5     Purchase Parts - Commodity Parts                        138
  E.5.3    Labor Database                                              139
     E.5.3.1     Overview                                               139
     E.5.3.2     Direct Versus Total Labor, Wage Versus Rate              140
     E.5.3.3     Contributors to Labor Rate and Labor Rate Equation       140
     E.5.4.1     Overview                                               142
     E.5.4.2     Manufacturing Overhead Rate Contributors and
     Calculations                                                      143
     E.5.4.3     Acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data                  144
  E.5.5    Mark-up (Scrap, SG&A, Profit, ED&T)                           146
     E.5.5.1     Overview                                               146
     E.5.5.2     Mark-up Rate Contributors and Calculations               147
     E.5.5.3     Assigning Mark-up Rates                                 150
  E.5.6    Packaging Database                                          150
     E.5.6.1     Overview                                               150
     E.5.6.2     Types of Packaging and Selection Process                  151
     E.5.6.3     Support for Costs in Packaging Database                   151
E.6    Shipping Costs                                                 152
E.7    Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary Worksheet        152
  E.7.1    Overview                                                    152
  E.7.2    Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
  Worksheet                                                          153
E.8    Marketplace Validation                                          159
E.9    Cost Model Analysis Templates                                  159
 image: 








                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                March 30, 2012
                                                                      Page 6

     E.9.1    Subsystem, System and Vehicle Cost Model Analysis Templates    159
  E.10   Differential Tooling Cost Analysis                                160
     E.10.1   Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Overview                       160
     E.10.2   Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Methodology                    161
  E.11   Cost Curve - % Mass Reduction vs. Cost per Kilogram             164
     E.11.1   Cost Curve Development Overview                             164
     E.11.2   Cost Curve Development Overview                             164
F.   Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results                      166
                                                \
  F.1  Vehicle Results Summary                                          166
     F.1.1    Assumptions                                                 166
     F.1.2    Baseline Vehicle Mass                                        167
     F.1.3    Vehicle Cost Summary                                        168
     F.1.4    Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost                       171
  F.2  Engine System                                                   174
     F.2.1    Engine Assembly Downsize (2.4L)                              176
       F.2.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             176
       F.2.1.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              176
       F.2.1.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          177
       F.2.1.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          177
       F.2.1.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         178
       F.2.1.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                 179
     F.2.2    Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem               180
       F.2.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             180
       F.2.2.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              181
       F.2.2.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          183
       F.2.2.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          183
       F.2.2.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         184
       F.2.2.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           186
     F.2.3    Crank Drive Subsystem                                       186
       F.2.3.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             186
 image: 








                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 7
  F.2.3.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               187
  F.2.3.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          188
  F.2.3.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          189
  F.2.3.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          190
  F.2.3.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            193
F.2.4    Counter Balance Subsystem                                    193
  F.2.4.1    Subsystem Content Overview                              193
  F.2.4.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               194
  F.2.4.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          195
  F.2.4.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          195
  F.2.4.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          196
  F.2.4.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            196
F.2.5    Cylinder Block Subsystem                                       196
  F.2.5.1    Subsystem Content Overview                              196
  F.2.5.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               197
  F.2.5.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          198
  F.2.5.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          199
  F.2.5.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          201
    F.2.5.5.1  Cylinder Block                                          202
    F.2.5.5.2  Cylinder Liner                                          205
    F.2.5.5.3  Crankcase Adapter                                       205
  F.2.5.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            206
F.2.6    Cylinder Head Subsystem                                       207
  F.2.6.1    Subsystem Content Overview                              207
  F.2.6.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               208
  F.2.6.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          209
  F.2.6.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          209
  F.2.6.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          210
  F.2.6.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            212
F.2.7    Valvetrain Subsystem                                          213
 image: 








                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                  PageS
  F.2.7.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             213
  F.2.7.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              213
  F.2.7.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          214
  F.2.7.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          215
  F.2.7.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         217
  F.2.7.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           220
F.2.8    Timing Drive Subsystem                                       221
  F.2.8.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             221
  F.2.8.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              222
  F.2.8.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          223
  F.2.8.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          224
  F.2.8.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         225
  F.2.8.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           228
F.2.9    Accessory Drive Subsystem                                    228
  F.2.9.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             228
F.2.10   Air Intake Subsystem                                          229
  F.2.10.1   Subsystem Content Overview                             229
  F.2.10.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              230
  F.2.10.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          231
  F.2.10.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          231
  F.2.10.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         232
  F.2.10.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           235
F.2.11   Fuel Induction Subsystem                                      236
  F.2.11.1   Subsystem Content Overview                             236
  F.2.11.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              236
  F.2.11.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          237
  F.2.11.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          238
  F.2.11.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         238
  F.2.11.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           239
F.2.12   Exhaust Subsystem                                           240
 image: 








                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 9
  F.2.12.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              240
  F.2.12.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               240
F.2.13   Lubrication Subsystem                                         241
  F.2.13.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              241
  F.2.13.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               242
  F.2.13.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           243
  F.2.13.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          243
  F.2.13.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          244
                                            X
  F.2.13.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            246
F.2.14   Cooling Subsystem                                            247
  F.2.14.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              247
  F.2.14.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               247
  F.2.14.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           248
F.2.14.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                249
  F.2.14.4   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          250
  F.2.14.5   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            251
F.2.15   Induction Air Charging Subsystem                               252
F.2.16   Exhaust Gas Re-circulation                                     252
F.2.17   Breather Subsystem                                            252
  F.2.17.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              252
  F.2.17.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               253
  F.2.17.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           254
  F.2.17.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          254
  F.2.17.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          254
  F.2.17.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            255
F.2.18   Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Elec. Subsystem           256
  F.2.18.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              256
  F.2.18.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               256
  F.2.18.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           257
  F.2.18.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          257
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 10
     F.2.18.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          258
     F.2.18.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            258
  F.2.19  Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)               259
     F.2.19.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              259
     F.2.19.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               260
     F.2.19.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          261
     F.2.19.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          261
     F.2.19.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          262
                                              X
     F.2.19.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            263
F.3   Transmission System                                              264
  F.3.1    External Components                                          266
     F.3.1.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              266
  F.3.2    Case Subsystem                                              266
     F.3.2.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              266
     F.3.2.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               268
     F.3.2.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          268
     F.3.2.4     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          268
     F.3.2.5     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          269
     F.3.2.6     Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                  269
  F.3.3    Gear Train Subsystem                                         270
     F.3.3.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              270
     F.3.3.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               271
     F.3.3.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          271
     F.3.3.4     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Used                271
     F.3.3.5     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          272
     F.3.3.6     Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                  273
  F.3.4    Internal Clutch Subsystem                                      274
     F.3.4.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              274
  F.3.5    Launch Clutch Subsystem                                      274
     F.3.5.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              274
 image: 








                                                Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                             March 30, 2012
                                                                 Page 11

  F.3.5.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               275
  F.3.5.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           276
  F.3.5.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           276
  F.3.5.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          276
  F.3.5.6    Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates       277
F.3.6    Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem                                  278
  F.3.6.1    Subsystem Content Overview                              278
  F.3.6.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               279
  F.3.6.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           279
  F.3.6.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           279
  F.3.6.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          280
  F.3.6.6    Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates       281
F.3.7    Mechanical Controls  Subsystem                                 282
F.3.8    Electrical Controls Subsystem                                   282
F.3.9    Parking Mechanism Subsystem                                  282
F.3.10   Misc. Subsystem                                              282
F.3.11   Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem                             282
F.3.12   Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem                     282
  F.3.12.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              282
  F.3.12.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               283
  F.3.12.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           284
  F.3.12.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           284
  F.3.12.5   Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas                          284
  F.3.12.6   Preliminary Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates       285
  F.3.12.7   Total Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates            286
F.4A.2 Lightweight Design Optimization Process                           289
F.4A.3 Gauge and Grade Optimization Model                              289
F.4A.4  Gauge and Grade Optimization Response Surface                  291
F.4A.5  Gauge and Grade Optimization Results                            292
F.4A.6   Alternative Joining Technology                                   292
 image: 








                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 12

     F.4A.7  Alternative Materials                                           292
     F.4A.8  Alternative Manufacturing Technology                            294
     F.4A.9  Geometry Change                                             296
     F.4A.10  Optimized Body Structure                                      297
     F.4A.11  Optimized Results                                            300
       F.4A.11.1 NVH Performance Results                                 301
       F.4A.11.2 Crash Performance Results                                301
         F.4A. 11.2.1 FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)        302
         F.4A.11.2.2 Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro
         NCAP/IIHS)                                                     308
         Figure 1.9.26—Body Pulse Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized          311
         F.3.12.7.1  Dynamic Crush                                        311
         F.4A. 11.2.3  Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB Frontal Crash (Euro
         NCAP/IIHS) 314
         F.4A. 11.2.4  FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH MDB side impact               317
         F.4A.11.2.5  FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB Rear Impact                321
         F.4A.11.2.6  FMVSS 216a—Roof Crush Resistance                   326
     F.4A.11 Cost Impact                                                  329
     F.4A. 12 Summary                                                     333
     F.4A.13  Future Trends and Recommendation                            333
F.4B  Body System Group B                                          335
     F.4B.1   Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem                      336
     F.4B.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                 336
     F.4B.1.2    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                              337
     F.4B.1.3    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                346
     F.4B.1.4    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                              347
     F.4B.1.5    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                        349
     F.4B.2   Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)                       350
     F.4B.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                 350
     F.4B.2.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    350
     F.4B.2.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                              351
 image: 








                                                     Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 13

  F.4B.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 351
  F.4B.2.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                352
  F.4B.2.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                         352
  F.4B.3   Sealing Subsystem                                               353
  F.4B.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                    353
  F.4B.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                     354
  F.4B.3.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 355
  F.4B.3.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 355
  F.4B.3.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                356
  F.4B.3.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                         358
  F.4B.4   Seating Subsystem                                               359
  F.4B.4.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                    359
  F.4B.4.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                     359
  F.4B.4.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 363
  F.4B.4.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 363
  F.4B.4.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                364
  F.4B.4.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                         374
F.4B.5   Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem                            378
  F.4B.5.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                    378
  F.4B.5.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                     379
  F.4B.5.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 381
  F.4B.5.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 385
  F.4B.5.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                385
  F.4B.5.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                           387
F.4B.6   Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem                             388
  F.4B.6.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                    388
  F.4B.6.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                     389
  F.4B.6.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 391
  F.4B.6.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                 396
  F.4B.6.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                                397
  F.4B.6.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                           398
 image: 








                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                       Page 14

F.4C  Body Structure Group C                                         400
  F.4C.1   Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem                         402
     F.4C.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                   402
     F.4C.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    402
     F.4C.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               404
     F.4C.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                405
     F.4C.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               406
     F.4C.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                        406
  F.4C.2   Rear View Mirrors Subsystem                                      407
     F.4C.2.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                   407
     F.4C.2.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    408
     F.4C.2.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               409
     F.4C.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                409
     F.4C.2.5   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected                   409
     F.4C.2.6   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts and Cost Impacts           410
  F.4C.3   Front End Module Subsystem                                      410
                                                 F
     F.4C.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                   410
     F.4C.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    412
     F.4C.3.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               412
     F.4C.3.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                412
     F.4C.3.5   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected                   413
     F.4C.3.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 413
  F.4C.4   Rear End Module Subsystem                                      414
     F.4C.4.1   Subsystem Content Overview                                   414
     F.4C.4.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    415
     F.4C.4.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               415
     F.4C.4.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                416
     F.4C.4.5   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected                   416
     F.4C.4.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 416
F.4D  Body System Group D                                           419
 image: 








                                                    Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                 March 30, 2012
                                                                     Page 15
F.4D.1   Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem                  421
  F.4D.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                   421
  F.4D.1.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    422
  F.4D.1.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               424
  F.4D.1.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                426
  F.4D.1.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               427
  F.4D.1.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                          428
F.4D.2   Handles, Locks, Latches & Mechanisms Subsystem.                  430
  F.4D.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                   430
  F.4D.2.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    432
  F.4D.2.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               432
  F.4D.2.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                434
  F.4D.2.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               434
  F.4D.2.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 435
F.4D.3   Rear Hatch Lift Assembly Subsystem                               435
  F.4D.3.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                   435
  F.4D.3.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    436
  F.4D.3.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                               436
  F.4D.3.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                437
  F.4D.3.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               437
  F.4D.3.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 437
F.4D.4   Wipers and Washers Subsystem                                   438
  F.4D.4.1    Subsystem Content Overview                                   438
  F.4D.4.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                    440
  F.4D.4.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                442
  F.4D.4.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                               443
  F.4D.4.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                 443
F.4E Body System Group A                                               445
  F.4E.1 Subsystem Content Overview                                      445
     F.4E.1.1 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                 446
     F.4E.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                             446
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 16
     F.4E.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered            446
     F.4E.1.3 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected               447
     F.4E.1.5  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            447
  F.4E.2 Front End Subsystem                                            448
     F.4E.2.1  Subsystem Content Overview                               448
     F.4E.2.2 Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                 449
     F.4E.2.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                            449
     F.4E.2.4 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered            449
     F.4E.2.5 Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Selected               450
     F.4E.2.6 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                              450
F.5   Suspension System                                                451
  F.5.1    Front Suspension Subsystem                                   453
     F.5.1.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              453
     F.5.1.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               455
     F.5.1.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          456
       F.5.1.3.1  Front Control Arm Assembly                              457
       F.5.1.3.2  Front Steering Knuckle                                   462
       F.5.1.3.3  Front Stabilizer Bar System                               463
     F.5.1.4     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          467
     F.5.1.5     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          470
       F.5.1.5.1  Front Control Arm Assembly                              472
       F.5.1.5.2  Front Steering Knuckle                                   477
       F.5.1.5.3  Front Stabilizer Bar System                               478
     F.5.1.6     Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          482
  F.5.2    Rear Suspension Subsystem                                   483
     F.5.2.1     Subsystem Content Overview                              483
     F.5.2.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               485
     F.5.2.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          486
       F.5.2.3.1  Rear Arm Assembly//!                                   487
       F.5.2.3.2  Rear Arm Assembly #2                                   487
 image: 








                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 17
     F.5.2.3.3  Rear Rod Assembly                                      488
     F.5.2.3.4  Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle                              489
     F.5.2.3.5  Rear Stabilizer Bar System                                489
  F.5.2.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           493
  F.5.2.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          496
     F.5.2.5.1  Rear Arm Assembly//!                                    497
     F.5.2.5.2  Rear Arm Assembly #2                                    498
     F.5.2.5.3  Rear Rod Assembly                                      498
     F.5.2.5.4  Rear Bearing Carrier Knuckle                              499
     F.5.2.5.5  Rear Stabilizer Bar System                                500
  F.5.2.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           504
F.5.3    Shock Absorber Subsystem                                      504
  F.5.3.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               504
  F.5.3.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               507
  F.5.3.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           508
     F.5.3.3.1  Strut / Damper Module Assemblies                          509
  F.5.3.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           516
  F.5.3.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          520
     F.5.3.5.1  Strut / Damper Module Assemblies                          523
  F.5.3.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           531
F.5.4    Wheels and Tires Subsystem                                    532
  F.5.4.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               532
  F.5.4.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               534
  F.5.4.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           534
     F.5.4.3.1  Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies                            535
     F.5.4.3.2  Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly                             537
     F.5.4.3.3  Lug Nuts                                                539
  F.5.4.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           539
  F.5.4.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          542
     F.5.4.5.1  Road Wheel & Tire Assemblies                            543
 image: 








                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                    Page 18

       F.5.4.5.2  Spare Wheel & Tire Assembly                            545
       F.5.4.5.3  Lug Nuts                                               547
     F.5.4.6   Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          548
F.6  Driveline System                                                   549
   F.6.1     Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem                             550
     F.6.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              550
     F.6.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              551
   F.6.2     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                551
     F.6.2.1   Drive Hubs                                              551
   F.6.3     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                553
   F.6.4     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                              553
     F.6.4.1   Front Drive Unit                                         554
   F.6.5     Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                 554
   F.6.6     Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem                              555
     F.6.6.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              555
   F.6.7     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology                   557
   F.6.8     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                557
     F.6.8.1   Right-Hand Half Shaft                                    557
     F.6.8.2   Bearing Carrier                                          557
     F.6.8.3   Bearing Carrier Bolt                                      558
   F.6.9     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                559
   F.6.10   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                              559
     F.6.10.1  RH Half Shaft                                           560
     F.6.10.2  Bearing Carrier                                          560
     F.6.10.3  Bearing Carrier Bolt                                      561
   F.6.11   Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                 561
F.7  Braking System                                                   562
   F.7.1     Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem                        563
     F.7.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              563
     F.7.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              565
 image: 








                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 19
  F.7.1.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           566
     F.7.1.3.1  Rotors                                                  566
     F.7.1.3.2  Splash Shields                                           567
     F.7.1.3.3  Caliper Assembly                                        568
  F.7.1.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          572
  F.7.1.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          575
     F.7.1.5.1  Rotors                                                  575
     F.7.1.5.2  Splash Shields                                           583
     F.7.1.5.3  Caliper Assembly                                        584
  F.7.1.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          588
F.7.2    Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem                         590
  F.7.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               590
  F.7.2.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               592
  F.7.2.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           592
     F.7.2.3.1  Rotors                                                  592
     F.7.2.3.2  Splash Shields                                           594
     F.7.2.3.3  Caliper Assembly                                        594
  F.7.2.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          598
  F.7.2.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          601
     F.7.2.5.1  Rotors                                                  602
     F.7.2.5.2  Splash Shields                                           609
     F.7.2.5.3  Caliper Assembly                                        610
  F.7.2.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          615
F.7.3    Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem                          617
  F.7.3.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               617
  F.7.3.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               618
  F.7.3.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           619
     F.7.3.3.1  Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-Assembly                       620
     F.7.3.3.2  Cable System Sub-Assembly                               621
     F.7.3.3.3  Brake Shoes and Attachments Sub-Assembly                621
 image: 








                                                 Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 20
  F.7.3.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           623
  F.7.3.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          624
     F.7.3.5.1  Actuator Button Sub-Assembly                             625
     F.7.3.5.2  Cable System Sub-Assembly                               626
     F.7.3.5.3  Caliper Motor Actuator Sub-Assembly                      626
  F.7.3.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           627
F.7.4    Brake Actuation Subsystem                                      628
  F.7.4.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               628
  F.7.4.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               629
  F.7.4.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           630
     F.7.4.3.1  Master Cylinder and Reservoir                             630
     F.7.4.3.2  Brake Lines and Hoses                                    630
     F.7.4.3.3  Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly                        631
     F.7.4.3.4  Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly                   634
  F.7.4.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           634
  F.7.4.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          636
     F.7.4.5.1  Master Cylinder and Reservoir                             637
     F.7.4.5.2  Brake Lines and Hoses                                    637
     F.7.4.5.3  Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly                        637
     F.7.4.5.4  Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly                   640
  F.7.4.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           641
F.7.5    Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)                           643
  F.7.5.1    Subsystem Content Overview                               643
  F.7.5.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               643
  F.7.5.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           644
     F.7.5.3.1  Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly                            645
  F.7.5.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           649
  F.7.5.5    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          651
     F.7.5.5.1  Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly                            652
  F.7.5.6    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results           656
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                              March 30, 2012
                                                                  Page 21
F.8  Frame & Mounting System                                         657
   F.8.1    Frame Subsystem                                            659
     F.8.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             659
     F.8.1.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               660
   F.8.2    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                661
     F.8.2.1    Front Frame                                            661
     F.8.2.2    Rear Frame                                             662
     F.8.2.3    Front Suspension Brackets                                663
     F.8.2.4    Front Damper Assembly                                  663
     F.8.2.5    Frame Side Rail Brackets                                 664
     F.8.2.6    RearSuspension Stopper Brackets                         665
   F.8.3    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                665
     F.8.3.1    Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                         666
     F.8.3.2    Front Suspension Brackets                                667
     F.8.3.3    Rear Suspension Stopper Brackets                         668
     F.8.3.4    Front Damper Assembly                                  668
     F.8.3.5    Front Damper Assembly                                  669
     F.8.3.6    Front Frame Assembly                                   670
     F.8.3.7    Rear Frame Assembly                                    670
   F.8.4    Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                671
F.9  Exhaust System                                                   672
   F.9.1    Acoustical Control Components Subsystem                       674
     F.9.1.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             674
     F.9.1.2    Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               674
     F.9.1.3    Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          675
     F.9.1.4    Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          675
     F.9.1.5    Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas                         676
     F.9.1.6    Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                           682
   F.9.2    Exhaust Gas Treatment Components Subsystem                  683
     F.9.2.1    Subsystem Content Overview                             683
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 22
     F.9.2.2     Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               683
     F.9.2.3     Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           684
     F.9.2.4     Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           684
     F.9.2.5     Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          685
     F.9.2.6     Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            685
F.10   Fuel  System                                                     686
  F. 10.1   Fuel Tank & Lines Subsystem                                   687
     F.10.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              687
     F.10.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               688
  F.10.2   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                                 689
     F.10.2.1   Fuel Tank                                               689
     F.10.2.2   Fuel Pump                                               690
     F.10.2.3   Sending Unit                                             692
     F.10.2.4   Fuel Tank Mounting Straps                               693
     F.10.2.5   Fuel Filler Tube Assembly                                 694
  F.10.3   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered                694
  F.10.4   Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas                              695
     F.10.4.1   Cross-Over Tube Assembly                                696
     F.10.4.2   Fuel Tank                                               697
     F.10.4.3   Fuel Tank Mounting Pins (Eliminated)                     697
     F.10.4.4   Fuel Pump Retaining Ring                                 698
     F.10.4.5   Fuel Sending Unit Retaining Bracket                       698
     F.10.4.6   Large Bracket (Eliminated)                                699
     F.10.4.7   Protector Bracket (Eliminated)                            699
     F.10.4.8   Small Shield Bracket (Eliminated)                          700
     F.10.4.9   Fuel Filler Tube Assembly                                 701
  F.10.5   Calculated  Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                 701
  F.10.6   Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem                             702
     F.I0.6.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              702
     F.10.6.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               703
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 23
     F.10.6.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           703
     F.10.6.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          704
     F.10.6.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          705
     F.10.6.6   Canister Housing & Canister Cover                        706
     F.10.6.7   Canister Brackets                                        707
     F.10.6.8   Calculated Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results          708
F.11    Steering System                                                 709
  F.11.1   Steering Gear Subsystem                                       710
                                              X
     F.ll.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              710
     F.ll.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               711
     F.ll.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           711
     F.ll.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          711
     F.I 1.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          712
     F.I 1.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                   712
  F.11.2   Power Steering Subsystem                                     713
     F.ll.2.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              713
     F.ll.2.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               714
     F.ll.2.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           714
     F.ll.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          714
     F.I 1.2.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          714
     F.ll.2.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            715
  F.11.3   Steering Column Subsystem                                    716
     F.ll.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              716
     F.ll.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               716
     F.ll.3.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           717
     F.ll.3.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          717
     F.I 1.3.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          717
  F. 11.4   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                                  718
  F.11.5   Steering Column Switches Subsystem                            719
     F.ll.5.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              719
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 24
     F.ll.5.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               720
     F.ll.5.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          720
     F.ll.5.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          720
     F.I 1.5.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          720
  F.11.6   Steering Wheel Subsystem                                     721
     F.ll.6.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              721
     F.ll.6.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               721
     F.ll.6.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          722
     F.ll.6.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          723
     F.I 1.6.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          723
     F.ll.6.6   Reduction & Cost Impact                                 724
F.12   Climate Control System                                          725
  F.12.1   Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem                         727
     F.12.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              727
     F.12.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               727
     F.12.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          730
     F.12.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          734
     F.12.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          735
     F.12.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                     736
  F.12.2   Heating/Defrosting Subsystem                                  737
     F.12.2.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              737
     F.12.2.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               738
     F.12.2.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          738
     F.12.2.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          738
     F.12.2.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          739
     F.12.2.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                     739
  F.12.3   Controls Subsystem                                           740
     F.12.3.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              740
     F.12.3.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               741
     F.12.3.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                          741
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 25
     F.12.3.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           741
     F.12.3.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          742
     F.12.3.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                     742
F.13   Info, Gage & Warning Device System                              743
  F.13.1   Instrument Cluster Subsystem                                   745
     F.13.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                              745
     F.13.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               746
     F.13.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           746
     F.13.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           746
     F.13.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                          746
     F.13.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                            748
F.14   In-Vehicle Entertainment System                                  749
  F.14.1   In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem                  750
     F.14.1.1   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology               751
     F.14.1.2   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           752
     F.14.1.3   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           752
     F.14.1.4   Magnetic Tooling                                        753
     F.14.1.5   Recycled Plastic                                          754
     F.14.1.6   Widespread Application                                   755
     F.14.1.7   Selection of Mass-Reduction Ideas                          755
     F.14.1.8   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Estimates                   756
  F.14.2   Antenna Subsystem                                            757
  F.14.3   Speaker Subsystem                                            759
  F.14.4   Total Mass  Reduction and Cost Impact                           759
F.15   Lighting System                                                 759
  F.15.1   Front Lighting Subsystem                                       761
     F.15.1.1   Subsystems Content  Overview                             761
     F.15.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline System Technology                  761
     F.15.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                           764
     F.15.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered           766
 image: 








                                                  Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                               March 30, 2012
                                                                   Page 26

       F.15.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                        766
       F.15.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results                    767
  F.16   Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System              768
     F.16.1   Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem                770
       F.16.1.1   Subsystem Content Overview                            770
       F.16.1.2   Toyota Venza Baseline Subsystem Technology              772
       F.16.1.3   Mass-Reduction Industry Trends                         772
       F.16.1.4   Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Considered          772
       F.16.1.5   Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas                        773
       F.16.1.6   Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact                          775
  F.17   Vehicle Systems Overview and Results                          779
  F.18   Comparison of Results                                         779
G.   Conclusions & Recommendation                               779
H.   Appendix                                                        779
  H.1    Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
  Worksheet                                                          780
  H.2    Executive Summary for Lotus Engineering Phase 1 Report         787
  H.3    Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published Articles, Papers, and
  Journals Used as Information Sources in the Analysis                    790
  H.4    EPA Toyota Venza Cost Analysis Breakdown                     793
  H.5    Suppliers Contributed in Study                                 817
I.    Glossary of Terms                                              817
 image: 








                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 27


                                       Figures
NUMBER                                                                           PAGE
IMAGE B-L2009 TOYOTA VENZA	37
FIGURE E-l: FUNDAMENTAL STEPS IN COSTING PROCESS	132
FIGURE E-2: UNIT COST MODEL - COSTING FACTORS INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS	132
FIGURE E-3: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART lor 2)	154
FIGURE E-4: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 2 OF 2)	155
FIGURE E-5: EXCERPT ILLUSTRATING AUTOMATED LINK BETWEEN OEM/T1 CLASSIFICATION INPUT IN MAQS
     WORKSHEET AND THE CORRESPONDING MARK-UP PERCENTAGES UPLOADED FROM THE MARK-UP
     DATABASE	156
FIGURE E-6: SAMPLE EXCERPT FROM MASS-REDUCED FRONT BRAKE ROTOR MAQS WORKSHEET
     ILLUSTRATING TOOLING COLUMN AND CATEGORIES	163
TABLE F.2-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR ENGINE SYSTEM	174
TABLE F.2-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ENGINE SYSTEM	175
TABLE F.5-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM	452
TABLE F.6-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM	549
TABLE F.6-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM	550
TABLE F.6-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM	550
TABLE F.7-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE BRAKING SYSTEM	562
TABLE F.8-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM	658
TABLE F.8-2: CALCULATED MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM	658
TABLE F.8-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRAME SUBSYSTEM	659
TABLE F. 13-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR INFO, GAGE & WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM	744
TABLE F. 13-2: PRELIMINARY MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR INFO, GAGE & WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM
     	744
TABLE F. 13 -3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR INSTRUMENT CLUSTER SUBSYSTEM	746
TABLE F. 13-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
     SUBSYSTEM	746
TABLE F. 13 -5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL INFO INSTRUMENT CLUSTER SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS
     	747
TABLE F. 13-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR INSTRUMENT CLUSTER
     SUBSYSTEM	748
TABLE F. 14-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM	749
TABLE F. 14-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP	750
TABLE F. 14-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR RECEIVER AND AUDIO MEDIA SUBSYSTEM	751
FIGURE H-2: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 2 OF 2)	782
FIGURE H-3: EXCERPT ILLUSTRATING AUTOMATED LINK BETWEEN OEM/T1 CLASSIFICATION INPUT IN MAQS
     WORKSHEET AND THE CORRESPONDING MARK-UP PERCENTAGES UPLOADED FROM THE MARK-UP DATABASE
     	783
FIGURE H-4: EXAMPLE OF PACKAGING COST CALCULATION FOR BASE BATTERY MODULE	786
                                       Tables

Number                                                                          Page

TABLE A-1: ADVANCED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS EVALUATED	ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE A-2: ADVANCE TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS EVALUATED	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.
 image: 








                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 28

TABLE A-3: ADVANCE START-STOP HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION EVALUATED (BELT
     ALTERNATOR GENERATOR ARCHITECTURE)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE A-4: POWER-SPLIT HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE A-5: P2 HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE A-6: ELECTRICAL AIR CONDITIONING COMPRESSOR TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION.ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE B-l: STUDIED TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS APPLICABILITY TO NORTH AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN VEHICLE
     SEGMENTS	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLEB-2: EPANORTH AMERICAN POWERTRAIN VEHICLE CLASS SUMMARY MATRIX (P-VCSM)	ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE B -3: EPA PUBLISHED REPORTS FOR EVALUATED TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS ... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLEB-4: EUROPEAN POWERTRAIN VEHICLE CLASS SUMMARY MATRIX (P-VCSM)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE B -5: UNIVERSAL CASE STUDY ASSUMPTION UTILIZED IN EUROPEAN ANALYSIS	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE B-6: INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS (ICMs)UsED IN EUROPEAN ANALYSIS .ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE C-l: STANDARD MARK-UP RATES APPLIED TO TIER 1 AND TIER 2/3 SUPPLIERS BASED ON COMPLEXITY AND
     SIZE RATINGS	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-l: 1.6L, 14, DS, TC, GDI ICE COMPARED TO 2.4L 14, NA, PFI, ICE    HARDWARE OVERVIEW	ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-2:2.0L, 14, DS, TC, GDI ICE COMPARED TO 3.0L V6, NA, PFI ICE       HARDWARE OVERVIEW
     	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-3: 3.5L, V6, DS, TC, GDI ICE COMPARED TO 5.4L, V8, NA, PFI ICE       HARDWARE OVERVIEW
     	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-4: DOWNSIZED, TURBOCHARGED, GASOLINE DIRECT INJECT ICE INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING
     COST SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-5: DOWNSIZED, TURBOCHARGED, GASOLINE DIRECT INJECT ICE INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING
     COST SUMMARY BY FUNCTION	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-6: VARIABLE VALVE TIMING AND LIFT (FIAT MULTIAIR SYSTEM), INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING
     COST SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-7: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO EVALUATED ENGINE
     TECHNOLOGIES (DS, TC, GDI ICE&WTL)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-8: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COSTS FOR EVALUATED ENGINE
     TECHNOLOGIES (DS, TC, GDI ICE&WTL)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-9:6-SPEED AT COMPARED TO 5-SPEED AT, HARDWARE OVERVIEW	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
 image: 








                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                          March 30, 2012
                                                                               Page 29

TABLE E-10:6-SPEEDDSG/DCT COMPARED TO 6-SPEED AT, HARDWARE OVERVIEW	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE E-l 1: S-SPEED AT COMPARED TO 6-SPEED AT, HARDWARE OVERVIEW ...ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-12: TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATIONS, INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COST
     SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-l3: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO EVALUATED
     TRANSMISSION TECHNOLOGIES (6-SPEED AT, S-SPEED AT, 6-SPEED DCT)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT
     DEFINED.

TABLE E-14: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COSTS FOR EVALUATED TRANSMISSION
     TECHNOLOGIES (6-SPEED AT, S-SPEED AT, 6-SPEED DCT)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-15: START-STOP HEV (BAS), INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COST SYSTEM-SUBSYSTEM
     SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-16: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO START-STOP HEV
     (BAS)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-17: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COST FOR EVALUATED START-STOP HEV
     (BAS)	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-18: POWER-SPLIT HEV (2010 FORD FUSION) COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL POWERTRAIN VEHICLE,
     HARDWARE OVERVIEW	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-19: POWER-SPLIT TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COSTS SYSTEM
     SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-20: POWER-SPLIT TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION, INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COSTS,
     SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-21: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO POWER-SPLIT HEVs
     	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-22: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COST FOR EVALUATED POWER-SPLIT HEVs
     	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-23: P2 TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION, INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COSTS, SYSTEM
     SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-24: P2 TECHNOLOGY CONFIGURATION, INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COSTS,
     SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM SUMMARY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-25: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO P2 HEVs.... ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-26: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COST FOR EVALUATED P2 HEVs.... ERROR!
     BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-27: APPLICATION OF INDIRECT COST MULTIPLIERS AND LEARNING CURVE FACTORS TO ELECTRICAL AIR
     CONDITIONING COMPRESSOR TECHNOLOGY	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE E-28: NET INCREMENTAL (DIRECT + INDIRECT) MANUFACTURING COST FOR EVALUATED ELECTRICAL AIR
     CONDITIONING COMPRESSORS	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
 image: 








                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 30

TABLE F-l: LABOR RATE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ON THREE ENGINE DOWNSIZING, TURBOCHARGING, GASOLINE
     DIRECT INJECTION ENGINES ANALYSES	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-l: POWER-SPLIT VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 1 OF 3, BASE POWERTRAIN AND
     VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-2: POWER-SPLIT VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 2 OF 3, ICE, ELECTRIC TRACTION
     MOTOR AND ELECTRIC GENERATOR SIZING	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-3: POWER-SPLIT VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 3 OF 3, HIGH VOLTAGE TRACTION
     MOTOR BATTERY SIZING	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-4: P2 VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 1 OF 3, BASE POWERTRAIN AND VEHICLE
     ATTRIBUTES	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-5: P2 VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 2 OF 3, ICE, ELECTRIC TRACTION MOTOR AND
     ELECTRIC GENERATOR SIZING	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

TABLE G-6: P2VEHICLE SEGMENT ATTRIBUTE DATABASE FILE, PART 3 OF 3, HIGH VOLTAGE TRACTION MOTOR
     BATTERY SIZING	ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 31
A.      Executive Summary

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted FEV to perform a
Phase 2 analysis on the Lotus Engineering low development portion of the 2010 Phase 1
report. The Phase 1 report, titled "An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a
2017-2020 Model Year  Program," was  submitted to  the  Internal Council on  Clean
Transportation for release during March 2010. The analyses were to include evaluating
the mass-reduction opportunities presented in the Lotus report  as well as investigate
additional mass reduction opportunities. This was to include:
   •  A detailed finite element  analysis of body-in-white (BIW)
   •  Crash simulation of the entire mass reduced vehicle using sophisticated computer
      aided engineering tools
   •  Conducting further investigations into new mass reduction technologies which
      have been developed since 2009/2010 and redesigning the BIW, if necessary.
   •  In the event that BIW changes were implemented, verify that the redesigned body
      meets the major vehicle functional objectives for safety, dynamics, durability and
      noise/vibration/harshness (NVH).
   •  Conducting a thorough cost analysis of the mass reduction technologies identified.
The Lotus Engineering low development portion  of the Phase 1  report identified  mass
reduction technologies that achieved a 19% reduction in curb weight, less powertrain, or
an 18%  curb weight  reduction when including a hybrid powertrain  with  an advanced
turbocharged  and downsized engine.  The goal of the study was to identify mass saving
opportunities  totaling  20% curb weight while  maintaining performance parity relative to
the current vehicle. FEV's review  of the Lotus Phase 1 low  development BIW design
showed bending and torsional stiffness to be insufficient in meeting the design target of
no expected degradation  of ride, handling or NVH. Hence  the BIW was  redesigned in
order to achieve the desired design characteristics.  FEV also  utilized approximately 40 of
Lotus's 150 design ideas for  mass reduction  in the following vehicle systems: seating,
vehicle interior, suspension, and braking. Other mass reduction ideas came  from research
into various technology sources. This report details FEV's additional work and findings
to prove the  design  concept,  cost effectiveness, manufacturing feasibility,  and
crashworthiness that can meet the function and performance of the baseline vehicle (2010
Toyota Venza). All components and assemblies included in the  various Toyota Venza
vehicle systems were considered available for potential mass-reduction. Both direct mass-
reduction of components (e.g., design and/or material alternatives) and mass-reduction of
components via mass-reduction  compounding (i.e., the reduction of component  mass
enabled by reductions in vehicle mass) were regarded as viable options.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 32

After a complete vehicle teardown analysis of a 2010 Toyota Venza to record components
and manufacturing  processes, FEV and its subcontractors used  design, material, and
manufacturing processes determined likely to be available by the 2017-2020 model year
time frame to evaluate mass-reduction ideas. Lighter weight materials  such as  high-
strength steels, aluminum, engineering  plastics,  and other materials incorporated into
innovative structural designs  can produce substantial vehicle weight reduction. Product
and  manufacturing  engineering   technical experts  identified  opportunities  at the
component and  assembly level to reduce mass  during  the  teardown  and  evaluation
process. A  combination  of  research  and  development benchmark  data, production
benchmark data, and Toyota Venza specific re-design and development data was used to
verify and validate the mass-reduction concepts.

Along with mass-reduction calculations, FEV also  evaluated the  costs associated with
mass reduction, employing detailed and transparent  costing methodology and tools. The
costing methodology and tools are the same as those successfully utilized on previous
EPA advance powertrain incremental direct manufacturing cost studies. Additional details
on the costing methodology can be found in the EPA  published report EPA-420-R-09-020
"Light-duty        Technology       Cost       Analysis        Pilot       Study
(http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020.pdf).

To evaluate the impact of costs on the mass-reduced components,  cost models linked to
comprehensive costing  databases  for  raw  material rates,  labor  rates, manufacturing
overhead and burden rates,  as well as end item  scrap,  SG&A (selling general and
administration), profit, ED&T  (engineering, design, and testing), and  packaging  were
employed.

Key to the costing process is the task of developing a universal set of boundary conditions
establishing   a  constant  framework for  developing  incremental costs. A  common
framework for  all  costing   allows reliable comparison  of costs between the new
technology configuration (i.e., mass-reduced components) and the baseline technology
configuration (i.e., OEM production components).

In addition, having a good understanding of the analysis boundary conditions (i.e., what
assumptions are made in the analysis,  the methodology utilized, what parameters are
included in the final numbers, etc.), results in a fair and meaningful comparison between
results developed from alternative costing methodologies and/or sources.

Cost factors not included in the analysis include OEM indirect costs and learning factors.
OEM indirect costs include cost categories such as OEM engineering, design and testing,
OEM corporate overhead, OEM warranty, and OEM sales. Cost factors associated with
new technology inception (e.g. lower production volumes, lower market immaturity, low
market competition) are addressed through the addition of learning factors. Indirect costs
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 33

and costs associated with learning are addressed outside this analysis and within EPA's
modeling protocol.. Within the body of this report readers will be referenced as to where
additional details may be  found on the development and application of indirect cost
multipliers (ICM's) and learning factors.

The mass-reduction and cost analysis process employed in this project  is summarized
with the following five steps:
   1) fingerprint the baseline vehicle;
   2) mass-reduction idea generation;
   3) mass-reduction optimization (weights vs. costs);
   4) selection of mass-reduction level with best value; and
   5) detail technology feasibility and cost analysis.
FEV subcontracted with EDAG GmbH to evaluate the Venza body structure system using
sophisticated computer-aided design (CAD) and  engineering  (CAE)  tools.  EDAG is
worldwide engineering firm that provides "ready for production (engineering) solutions"
across entire  vehicle  platforms1   EDAG applied its standard  best practice of re-
engineering processes, which included vehicle teardown by skilled body technicians, parts
scanning, and data  collection of vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model. Part
details crucial for building the  CAE model (e.g., weight,  thickness) were obtained  and
recorded here in an assembly hierarchy. Through the process  of constructing detailed
models for critical vehicle  systems, EDAG was able to validate that major vehicle level
functional objectives were being maintained throughout the mass reduction process.

The  Venza  breakdown identified  17  major  systems  (e.g.,  Engine,  Transmission,
Suspension, etc.) amassed by a significant number of subsystems and sub-subsystems that
were  individually evaluated in the course of this study.  In Error! Reference  source not
found., a  summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each major system
evaluated is provided. This project recorded a mass reduction of 18.51% with powertrain
at a cost savings of $0.29/kg without  tooling impact.  Shown  in Figure A-l  is  an
incremental  direct manufacturing cost/kilogram  vs. vehicle mass-reduction percentage.
This  curve  does  not include  tooling,  ICMs,  or  Learning  Factors.  It  shows both
compounded and non-compounded mass-reduction.   All    direct   mass-reduction   of
components (e.g., design  and/or material alternatives) as well  as  mass-reduction of
components via mass compounding are considered viable options. For this project,  mass-
reduction compounding refers to the reduction of mass of a given component as the result
of a reduction in the mass of one or several other components.
1 EDAG GmbH http://www.edag.de/en/company.html
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 34
Description
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System) Group -A-) BIW & Closures
Body System) Group -B-) Interior
Body System! Group -C-) Exterior
Body System! Group -D-) Glazing & Body Mechatronics
Suspension System
Driveline System
Brake System
Frame and Mounting System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
Info, Ga arning System
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Lighting System
Electrical Dis. And Electronic Control System
Fluid & Misc.
Vehicle
Baseline
Mass "kg"
172.60
92.76
528.88
220.61
26.57
63.46
265.91
	 33.66 	
86.71
43.73
26.62
24.28
24.23
15.66
____
4.59
10.04
23.94
26.28
1711.38
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
30.35
18.90
67.89
42.00
2.37
6.16
69.45
	 150 	
40.52
16.50
7.52
6.80
1.82
2.44

1.07
0.53
0.89
0.00
316.78
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"t"
* (2)
$43.24
($114.15)
($230.66)
$122.98
$7.59
($15.25)
$135.93
($bTl6)
$116.21
($3.66)
$2.47
$3.91
$11.05
$9.34

$2.43
($0.76)
$1.35
0.00
$92.04
(Decrease)
Tooling Cost
"$" (X1000)
$5,892.20
($7,650.80)
($22,900.00)
$9,966.15
$0.00
$0.00
($7,200.97)
($160730)
($1,426.12)
$4,059.70
$0.00
$1,535.50
$1,352.70
$386.00

$1,175.60
$400.00
$103.50
0.00
($14,466.84)
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
W/O
Tooling
$/kg
1.42
(6.04)
(3.40)
2.93
3.20
(2.48)
1.96
	 (oTTij 	
2.87
(0.22)
0.33
0.57
6.08
3.83
2.45
2.27
(1.42)
1.52
0.00
0.29
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram VW
Tooling
$/kg
1.66
(6.53)
(3.81)
3.22
3.20
(2.48)
1.83
	 (0724) 	
2.83
0.08
0.33
0.85
6.99
4.03
2.45
3.60
(0.51)
1.66
0.00
0.24
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
17.58%
20.37%
.
19.03%
9.01%
9.70%
26.12%
4747%
46.73%
37.73%
21.09%
28.03%
26.31%
15.55%
_JU01%_
23.39%
5.29%
22.43%
0.00
-
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
1.77%
1.10%
3.97%
2.45%
0.14%
0.36%
4.06%
b7o9%
2.37%
0.96%
0.44%
0.40%
0.11%
0.14%
,jy>P%_
0.06%
0.03%
0.05%
0.00
18.51%
 Table A-l:  Mass-Reduction and Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost Impact for each Vehicle
                                  System Evaluated
Similar to the boundary conditions established in the Phase 1 Lotus analysis, the proposed
mass-reduction efforts maintain function and performance of the baseline Venza vehicle.
Again, the mass-reductions were selected to be available by the 2017 model year.  The
proposed  design is also commercially feasible for  high-volume  production  (-200,000
units per year) and the new technologies are expected to be  completely phased in and
incorporated into vehicle design by MY2017.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 35
      .
     O)
     o
o
O
O)

•§
*+5
3
c
CO
     £
     b
     "CD
     H—<
     c
     CD

     O
             0.000
            o.qo%
       -i.ooo

       -2.000
                                                                       20.00%
                            Percent Vehic e Mass-Reduction
                                                                          mpounde
                                                                        Non Compoi
                                                                        Compounde
                  Figure A-l: Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Cost Curve
B.
   Introduction
B.1    Project Overview

     B.1.1    Background for Studying Mass-Reduction

Vehicle manufacturers are currently modifying the architecture and design of their entire
product lineups to better respond to regulatory actions curbing greenhouse gas emissions
(GHG)  and to  meet consumer demands for substantial improvements in  vehicle fuel
economy   while   maintaining   vehicle   functionality   and  performance  attributes.
Accordingly, manufacturers are planning to rapidly expand implementation of advanced
vehicle,  powertrain  and  engine  technologies.  These technologies  include  engine
downsizing, turbocharging, direct injection, variable valve  timing & lift,  automated
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 36

manual transmissions, automated start-stop  systems,  electric-hybridization and other
technologies.

Another promising technology for reducing vehicle GHG emissions, and the focus of this
work,  is  reduction of vehicle weight. Weight reduction can be  accomplished without
compromising vehicle interior volume and utility by combining lightweight materials and
innovative vehicle design. Many mass reduction  techniques are already being applied by
vehicle manufacturers such as the use the use of lighter weight materials.  These materials
include engineering  plastics, high strength  steels, aluminum, magnesium, and other
materials incorporated into innovative structural  designs can yield substantial reductions
in vehicle weight. Appropriate light-weight  vehicle designs can  maintain or improve
current vehicle characteristics such as  safety, NVH control,  durability, handling and load
carrying capacity. For example, HEV battery pack enclosures could be integrated within
the vehicle structure to better optimize body strength  and weight compared to current
HEVs  that are essentially derivatives  of conventional vehicles. New materials could be
utilized in suspension components that are lightweight but lower in cost  than aluminum.
Reduction in  unsprung mass and improvements in suspension  geometry can  reduce
suspension loads on the chassis allowing  synergistic reductions in weight. Use  of
advanced  Computer Aided  Engineering  (CAE) such as  finite  element analysis can
optimize  load paths through  the chassis and body by simultaneously maintaining NVH
and crashworthiness while achieving weight reduction.
                                        ^K
While  the vehicle  architectures being investigated  for  this timeframe (2017-2020
production) must achieve low greenhouse gas emissions, the  designs must also be cost
effective  for consumers,  meet or  exceed current and planned safety requirements, meet
consumer expectations for vehicle performance (e.g. acceleration,  towing, load carrying,
handling) and durability.
     B.1.2   Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 1, Background Information

The analysis work covered in this report is  a continuation of work previously completed
for by Lotus  Engineering for the International Council on Clean Transportation. In the
initial analysis (also referred to as the Phase 1 analysis) Lotus Engineering performed a
mass-reduction evaluation and cost assessment on a current production 2009 Toyota
Venza. The Toyota Venza is a 4-door, 5-passenger vehicle available in all wheel drive or
front wheel drive configurations and has the physical attributes normally associated with
a Cross-over Utility Vehicle (CUV).  The Toyota Venza  (vehicle example shown in
Image B-l)  is  representative  of current  CUV's in terms  of body  architecture  and
powertrains. It achieves  five stars  (the highest rating)  in  crash testing, meets current
federal safety standards, offers comfortable seating for five with a large storage volume
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 37

and is rated at 21 MPG city and 29 MPG highway with a 2.7 liter four cylinder internal
combustion engine (ICE) and front wheel drive (FWD).  Toyota advertises that this is a
versatile vehicle for active lifestyles that meets a wide variety of functional requirements.
                            Image B-l: 2009 Toyota Venza
                  (Source: http://www.toyotacolors. info/2009-toyota-venza-4x4-v6/)
Lotus began the study with a complete tear-down of the Toyota Venza to establish the
mass for each vehicle system. Every part was removed from the Venza vehicle, measured,
weighed and the material type recorded. The components  were consolidated under the
appropriate  category,  e.g.,  body,  suspension,  interior. This work  was performed by
A2Macl,  an experienced benchmarking specialist subcontracted by Lotus Engineering.
This teardown  defined the baseline masses and the A2Macl database, which includes
teardown  data on vehicles distributed internationally, was used  as a source for selecting
lightweight components. Employing Lotus Engineering expertise, best-in-class  designs
(key selection criteria being mass) were selected to replace existing baseline components.

The  scope and deliverables  in Phase 1 of the  Lotus project included two  distinct
approaches  for  production  intent  lightweight  vehicle   structures.  Specifically,  the
deliverables were bills of materials (BOM's) representing  a Low Development vehicle
with a  20% overall mass reduction target  that represents approaches that  could be
implemented by 2017  and a High  Development vehicle with a  40% overall  mass
reduction  target, less powertrain, that represented approaches available for model year
2020 vehicles.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 38

The  original Lotus Engineering Phase 1 report, "An Assessment of Mass  Reduction
Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program,"  was submitted to the Internal
Council on Clean Transportation for release  during March 2010. The report can be found
at the following Internet address: hrtp://www.theicct.org/sites/default /files/publications
/Mass_reduction_final_2010.pdf. In Appendix  H.I the executive summary from the
Lotus report listed above can be found. In summary, Lotus Engineering determined that a
19% (244kg) mass-reduction (no powertrain contribution considered) was possible at a
vehicle piece cost impact of a nominal 99% to the baseline Venza vehicle.
     B.1.3    Mass-Reduction Evaluation - Phase 2, Purpose and Objectives

As  covered in Section B.1.2 above, the original (Phase  1) Lotus  Engineering  Low
Development mass-reduction and cost  analysis had a target of  20% vehicle mass-
reduction with production feasibility in the 2017-2020 timeframe EPA contracted with
FEV and their contractors a Phase 2 low development mass-reduction analysis to build-on
the  vehicle mass-reduction  efforts  previously  conducted by Lotus  Engineering. The
primary objectives can be summarized as follows:
    1.  Preliminary review and assessment of mass-reduction concepts proposed in Lotus
      phase 1 analysis.
   2.  Research and evaluation of potential vehicle mass-reduction ideas to compliment
      and/or provide additional alternatives to the existing Lotus recommendations.
      Sources of information include but are not limited to:
         a.  OEM and Tl advance production technologies
         b.  OEM and Tl advance technologies currently under development
         c.  Raw Material Suppliers research and development projects in mass
             reduction
         d.  Existing published  studies on the light-weighting  of light-duty vehicles
             (Reference Appendix H3: "Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction Published
             Articles,  Papers,  and  Journals  Used as  Information Sources  in the
             Analysis")
         e.  Alternative industry mass-reduction practices
         f.  Mass-reduction idea generated from internal brainstorming.
   3.  Additional effort in validating Lotus phase 1 ideas and/or any new mass-reduction
      ideas developed with the scope of the project. The validation methodology was
      based mainly at three levels:
         a.  Surrogate production vehicle benchmark data
         b.  Research and Development data from automotive component and  material
             suppliers
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 39

         c. Toyota Venza vehicle specific computer aided design (CAD) and
            engineering (CAE) analysis
   4. Ensure most mass-reduction ideas selected are manufacturing feasible and
      implementation ready for phase-in starting in the 2017 timeframe.
   5. Develop detailed incremental direct manufacturing costs for the adoption of the
      mass-reduced components, with respect to the baseline components, utilizing the
      same detailed costing methodology employed on previous EPA advance
      powertrain technologies cost analyses.
   6. Develop an incremental tooling cost impact for the adoption of the mass-reduced
      components, with respect to the baseline components.
   7. Develop an incremental direct manufacturing cost versus % vehicle mass-
      reduction curve.
Basic high level analysis boundary conditions include the following:
   1. Target vehicle mass-reduction 20% (340kg) total (baseline Venza approximately
      1710kg)
   2. Target vehicle direct manufacturing cost impact 0% increase (i.e., cost neutral)
      with a maximum 10% ($1,671) increase. Manufacturing Suggested Retail Price
      (MSRP) $25,063, Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) 1.5, vehicle direct manufacturing
      cost estimate $16,709 ($25,063/1.5).
   3. All components and assemblies included in the various Toyota Venza vehicle
      subsystems and systems are considered available options for potential mass-
      reduction.
   4. All direct mass-reduction of components (e.g., design and/or material alternatives)
      as well as mass-reduction of components via mass compounding are considered
      viable options. For this  project, mass-reduction compounding refers to the
      reduction of mass of a given component as the result of a reduction in the mass of
      one or several other components.
   5. No functional or performance degradation permitted from the production stock
      Toyota Venza.
   6. No functional or architecture changes to accommodate alternative engine
      technologies (this will be done in a separate calculation in EPA's rulemaking
      modeling). For example:
         a. Downsizing the engine based on adding turbocharging and direct injection
         b. Changing from a traditional 14 internal combustion engine and 6-speed
            automatic transmission to a hybrid powertrain configuration.
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 40

     B.1.4    Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Process Overview

As  previously stated, the Toyota Venza cross-over utility vehicle (CUV) was initially
chosen as the baseline vehicle for evaluating mass-reduction opportunities, for  both the
low- and high-development mass-reduction analyses, in the prior ICCT Phase 1 project.
Since the work conducted by FEV and their contractors,  is an extension of the original
Phase 1 low develop assessment, the Toyota Venza CUV was also evaluated in the phase
2 analysis.

For the Phase 2 analysis, a conscious effort was made to procure a vehicle with a content
level similar to  the one evaluated in the Phase  1  analysis ensuring optimal continuity
between the two studies.  For reference the vehicle identification  number (VIN) for the
2009 Venza evaluated in the Phase 1 analysis is 4T3ZE11A09U002202. The VIN for the
2010 Venza evaluated in the Phase 2 analysis is 4T3ZA3BB1AU036880

The mass-reduction and cost analysis process overview is defined in five (5) process steps
as shown in Figure B-l. Additional details on the processes and tools used in each of the
steps can be found in Sections C and D.
      Stepl
  Baseline
Vehicle Finger
  Printing
Step 2
                       Reduction
                         Idea
                       Generation
Step 3

  Masi-
Reduction &
   Cost
Optimization
  Process
                                                      Step 4
                                 election of
                               Vehicle Mass-
                                 Reduction
                                 Solution
                                                StepB
                                                                        Detailed
 Reduction
Feasi bi I ity and
CostAnalysis

            Figure B-l: Key Steps in the Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Project
Step 1: "Finger print" the baseline vehicle (i.e., current production Toyota Venza) to gain
a thorough understanding of the vehicle content and key attributes. The process involved
a systematic disassembly of the vehicle capturing key component information in detailed
bill of materials. In addition the finger printing process involved building CAE models of
the some of the  baseline systems,  such  as BIW, to establish  performance  attribute
baselines from which new technology configurations could be validated against.

Step 2: Review and analyze  the  Lotus  mass-reduction ideas as well as research new
potential mass-reduction ideas.  The primary  objective in  step 2  of the process was to
establish a comprehensive list  of mass-reduction ideas at a component level. In addition a
system was established to grade the mass-reduction ideas in terms of implementation
readiness, functionability/performance risk,  value (i.e., cost/mass-reduction),  etc. For
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 41

selected systems (e.g. body-in-white structure) preliminary validation work was initiated
to support grading of the mass-reduction concept.

Step 3: Utilize  an optimization process to determine the best component ideas to move
forward with to develop "best value" vehicle solutions. Mass-reduction ideas were sorted
and grouped at the component level in terms of their value (i.e., cost/kg). Two sets of
rules were established to group components, assemblies/sub-subsystems,  subsystems and
systems in optimized mass-reduced vehicle solutions. The more conservative approach
from  a cost perspective was called the "Low Cost Solution". The approach which
supported more emphasis on mass-reduction versus cost was termed the "Engineered
Solution".

Step 4: Evaluate various vehicle  solutions in terms of the  net mass-reduction, estimated
cost impact and comparison of risk. Based on these parameters the team  chose a vehicle
mass-reduction  solution. The  solution was  a compilation of mass-reduced components,
sub-subsystems, subsystems and systems.

Step 5: Develop a detailed mass-reduction feasibility and cost analysis on the vehicle
solution selected in step 4. The detailed mass-reduction feasibility analysis focused on
developing and refining the component mass-reduction  estimates made in step 2 of the
process. In  addition any validation work required  on the mass-reduction ideas  was
implemented in this step. Once the final details  on the component mass-reduction were
established  incremental cost models  were   established  to  determine  the  direct
manufacturing cost  differences between the baseline production components and new
mass-reduced components.  Mass-reduction  and incremental direct  manufacturing  cost
values were established starting at the component level building up to a vehicle level.

Additional details  on  the  methodology are  coved in Section  D (Mass Reduction
Analysis Methodology) and Section E (Cost Analysis Methodology).

C.    Mass-Reduction and  Cost Analysis Assumptions

C.1   Mass-Reduction Analysis Assumptions

A significant amount of the mass-reduction ideas  presented in this report are based on
implementation of ready bookshelf technologies. By selecting mass-reduction ideas which
are already in production and/or have gone through significant research and development
by OEMs, automotive parts  suppliers  and/or automotive raw  material suppliers, the
implementation risk and manufacturing feasibility  risk are considered far less. The end
result is a list of ideas with high probability of implementation success.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 42

The general,  sources of information used to develop mass-reduction ideas are shown in
Error!  Reference source not found.. In almost all mass-reduction cases, assumptions were
required to take the mass-reduction ideas from surrogate components and transfer them to
Toyota Venza specific components. This included normalizing the surrogate parts sizes
and weights to  Toyota  Venza specific parts  and making high  level engineering
adjustments for function  and performance  differences. Unique for the body-in-white
(BIW) structure portion of the analysis, CAE tools were used to  develop and model the
mass-reduction changes and  evaluate these  changes against the baseline  configuration
using  some industry recognize evaluation procedures. Note because the Body System -
Group A ( BIW and Closures) is the largest system contributor to mass-reduction and is
the primary system associated with crash safety, the additional CAE work was performed.
                                  Ready, Bookshelf    •
                                    Technology
       Figure C-l: Sources of Information used to develop Mass-Reduction Components
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 43

The  introduction of any  new  vehicle technologies for increased function, improved
performance, and/or reduction in mass, does not come without inherent challenges  and
risks. Large dedicated engineering teams at the automotive vehicle manufacturing level
and  automotive  parts supplier  levels spend years developing  components  for vehicle
specific application to ensure the designed components meet the component, subsystem,
system and vehicle function and performance  specifications. A great deal of this work
involves accounting for component interactions  both positively and negatively [e.g.,
Noise Vibration Harshness (NVH), durability, corrosion, calibration, etc.]

Due  to  the nature of this  type  of project, and the inherent analysis  limits (e.g. project
duration,   resources,  facilities, funding,  etc.) the level  of validation which can be
conducted on the components within each vehicle  system, as well  as with assessing the
synergistic impact (both positive and negative) is very limited. Though this doesn't imply
the mass-reduction ideas  are  not viable options.  It  only suggests  that  significant
engineering (i.e., what is normally required to develop a vehicle) is required to design and
develop the mass-reduced components into a vehicle specific application in some cases.
In many industries, especially the automotive industry, benchmarking vehicle components
and technologies  (similar to methodology employed in this analysis) is a significant part
of OEM and supplier research and development and a mechanism  of incubating new
vehicle technologies.

Within the scope of FEV's analysis no consideration is given to the exact quantity  and
timeframe of new mass-reduced technologies introduced  into a vehicle  platform. The
added complexity, associated risk, time period of phase-in, etc. and associated impact to
costs is addressed through the EPA's cost modeling factors (e.g., Indirect Cost Multipliers
[ICM], learning factors).

In Section C.2 below addition information on the cost analysis assumptions are covered.

Within the mass-reduction and cost analysis results sections (Sections E and F) additional
details on the mass-reduction assumption made and level of validation are captured.

C.2    Cost Analysis Assumptions

For both the baseline Toyota Venza components and the new mass-reduced replacement
components the  same universal set of assumptions are utilized in order to  establish  a
constant framework for all  costing.  The  primary assumption is that the  OEM  and
suppliers have the option of tooling up either the baseline components (i.e., production
stock Venza components)  or the mass-reduced components. The same product maturity
levels, manufacturing cost structure (e.g., production volumes, manufacturing locations,
manufacturing period), market conditions,  etc.  exist for either technology. This common
framework for costing  permits reliable comparison of  costs between new  (i.e., mass-
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 44

reduced components) and baseline (i.e., production stock Toyota Venza components)
components.  In  addition,  having  a good understanding  of the  analysis boundary
conditions  (i.e., what assumptions are made in the analysis, the  methodology utilized,
what  parameters  are included  in the final  numbers,  etc.),  a  fair  and  meaningful
comparison  can  be made  between  results  developed  from  alternative  costing
methodologies and/or sources.

Additional  details on the costing factors included in the cost analysis can be found in
Section E.

Table C-l  captures  the primary universal cost analysis assumptions which are applicable
to both the new and  baseline configurations evaluated in the analysis.
 image: 








                                                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                                                  March 30, 2012
                                                                                                                          Page 45

Table C-l: Universal Case Study Assumption Utilized in the Mass-Reduction Analysis
             Item
                              Description
          Universal Case Study Assumptions
                   Incremental Direct Manufacturing Costs
                   (Included in the analvsis)
A- Incremental Direct manufacturing cost is the incremental
difference in cost of components and assembly, to the OEM.
between the new technology configuration (i.e.. mass-reduced
components, assemblies) and the baseline technology
configuration (i.e.. the production stock Venza
components--assemblies).

B. This value does not include Indirect OEM costs associated with
adopting the new technology configuration {e.g. tooling, corporate
overhead, corporate R&D. etc.).
                   Increraental Indirect OEM Costs
                   (Not included within the scope of this
                   cost analysis)
A_ Indirect Costs are handled through the application of "Indirect
Cost Multipliers" (ICMs) which are not included as part of this
analysis. The ICM covers items such as	
a. OEM corporate overhead (sales, marketing, warranty, etc.)
b. OEM engineering, design and testing costs (internal & external)
c. OEM owned tooling

B. Reference EPA report EPA-420-R-G9-Q03: February 2009:
"Automobile Industry Retail Price Equivalent and Indirect Cost
Multiplier" for additional details on the develop and application of
ICM factors.

C. Reference EPA & NHTSA: report EPA-420-D-11 -901:
November 2011 "'Draft Joint Technical Support Document:
Proposed Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards & Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards." for additional details on the develop and
application of ICM and learning factors.
                   Incremental Production Tooling Costs
                   (Included in the analysis)
A. Incremental Production Tooling cost is the differential cost of
tooling to the OEM: between tooling up the new technology
configuration (i.e., mass-reduced components' assemblies) versus
the baseline technology configuration (i.e.. the production stock
Venza components'1 assemblies).

B. Analysis assumes all tooling is owed by OEM

C. Tooling includes items like stamping dies, plastic injection
mold, die casting molds, weld fixtures, assembly fixtures, gauges.
etc.
                   Product Technology Maturity Level
A. Mature technology assumption, as defined within this analysis.
includes the following:
a. Well developed product design
b. High production volume (200K-450K, year)
c. Products in service for several years at high volumes
c. Significant market place competition

B. Mature Technology assumption establishes a consistent
framework for costing. For example, a defined range of acceptable
mark-up rates.
a. End-item-scrap 0.3-0.7%
b. SG&A'Corporate Overhead 6-7%
c. Profit 4-8%
d. ED&T (Engineering. Design and Testing) 0-6%

C. The technology maturity assumption does not include
allowances for product learning.  Application of a learning curve
to the calculated incremental direct manufacturing cost is handled
outside the scope of this analysis.
 image: 








Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                   Page 46
Item
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Description
Selected Manufacturing Processes and
Operations
Annual Capacity Planning Volume
Supplier Manufacturing Location
OEM Manufacturing Location
Manufacturing Cost Structure
Timeframe
( e.g. Material Costs. Labor Rates.
Manufacturing Overhead Rates)
Packaging Costs
Shipping and Handling
Intellectual Property (IP) Cost
Considerations
Platform Synergies Considerations
Derivative Model Considerations
Material Cost Reductions (MCRs) on
analyzed hardware
Operating and End-of Life Costs
Stranded Capital or ED&T expenses
Universal Case Study Assumptions
A. All operations and processes are based on existing
standard'mainstream Industrial practices.
B. No additional allowance is included in the incremental direct
manufacturing cost for manufacturing learning. Application of a
learning curve to the developed incremental direct manufacturing
cost is handled outside the scope of this analysis.
Toyota Venza Specific Components 200.000 Units
Shared Platform Components 450,000 Units
United States of America
United States of America
2010/201 IProduction Year Rates
A. Calculated on all Tier One (Tl) supplier level components.
B. For Tier 2/3 (T2/T3) supplier level components, packaging
costs are included in Tl mark-up of incoming T2.-T3 incoming
goods.
A. Tl supplier shipping costs covered through application of the
Indirect Cost Multiplier (ICM) discussed above.
B. T2/T3 to Tl supplier shipping costs are accounted for via Tl
mark-up on incoming T2/T3 goods.
Where applicable IP costs are included in the analysis. Based on
the assumption that the technology has reached maturity, sufficient
competition would exist suggesting alternative design paths to
achieve similar function and performance metrics would be
available minimizing any IP cost penalty.
No consideration was given (positive or negative ) to x-platform
synergies. Both the baseline and mass-reduced technology
configurations were treated the same.
a. Common parts used across different models
b. Parts homologated •• validated .' certified for various worldwide
markets
No consideration was given to derivative models. Both the
baseline and mass-reduced technology configurations were treated
the same.
a. 2 wheel. 4 wheel or all wheel drive applications
b. Various engine .-•' transmission options with models
c. Various towing / loading / earning capacities
Only incorporated on those components where it was evident that
the component design and;'or selected manufacturing process was
chosen due to actual low production volumes (e.g. design choice
made to accept high piece price to minimize tooling expense).
Under this scenario, assumptions where made, and cost analyzed
assuming high production volumes.
No new. or modified, maintenance or end-of-life costs, were
identified in the analysis.
No stranded capital or non-recovered ED&T expenses were
considered within the scope of this analysis. It was assumed the
integration of new technology would be planned and phased in
minimizing non-recoverable expenses.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 47
D.     Mass Reduction Analysis Methodology

D.1   Overview of Methodology

As outlined in Section B.I.4, there are five (5) major process steps implemented in the
mass-reduction and cost analysis project. For each of the five (5) process steps involved
in the generic process, two (2) analysis road maps were established based on the type of
analysis work and  project goals required for each (Figure D-l). These two primary
project goals can be summarized as:

   1. Project Task 1: to review the existing Phase 1 Lotus mass-reduction ideas for all
      remaining systems evaluated and assess the implementation risk, manufacturing
      feasibility, and value  (cost/mass-reduction).  The costs calculations referenced in
      the value equations to be detailed and transparent similar to previous powertrain
      cost analyses.  In  cases  where additional  or  greater  value mass-reductions
      component ideas are identified, include them in the analysis.

   2. Project  Task 2: to  validate the body-in-white (BIW)  structural mass-reduction
      ideas recommended by Lotus Engineering using industry-recognized NVH  and
      crash computer  aided  engineering  (CAE) methods and  tools.  If  the  Lotus
      recommended ideas  resulted in degradation to the  baseline  BIW  structure,
      alternative mass-reduction solutions were investigated and validated using industry
      recognized tools and methods.
 image: 








         Stepl
  Step 2
StepS
Step 4
Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
              March 30, 2012
                  Page 48


         StepS

Baseline
Vehicle Finger
Printing
'
>^^^^^^^k. >•
Mass-
Reduction
Idea
Generation J

Taskl: Non BIW
^
A
Ve**
Teardown,
Measurements,
Baseline BOMs
Development
Analysis Roadmap
•^^h Review, A. ^
Develop, Grade,
and Rank Mass-
Reduction Ideas ^IJF
Initial Idea
Down-Selection

Task 2
\

: BIW Analysis Roadmap
Vehicle
Scanning
Model
Development
and Validation
\ \
LotusBIWMass-
/ Reduction
Model Runs /

Preliminary
Mass-
Reduction
and Cost
Estimates /
Mass-
Reduction
and Cost
Optimization
Process /
Detailed
Mass-
Reduction ,
Feasibility and
Cost Analysis

Preliminaiy
Mass Reduction
and Cost
Estimate H^
Final Idea
Down -Selection
Sort Combine
Mass- Reduction
Ideas into
Optimized
Vehicle Solution
Final Detailed
Mass- Reduction
and Cost
Analysis

\ Elimination of
Unsuccessful /
Lotus Ideas /

\
BIW Lightweight
CAE Design
Optimization /
Process /

\ Detailed Cost
Analysis

               Figure D-l: Project Analysis Roadmaps Based on Project Tacks

Since the mass-reduction objectives were somewhat different for each of the primary
project goals, two roadmaps and two teams were developed to support the work. During
Project Task 1, FEV were lead and their subcontractor Munro and Associates supported
the analysis work; Project Task 2, FEV's subcontractor EDAG took lead on the analysis
and FEV supported.

In the methodology discussion which  follows, the analysis roadmaps for each task are
discussed in detail.

D.2   Project Task One - Non Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and Cost
Analysis

     D.2.1    Baseline Vehicle Finger  Printing
      Procurement
  Vehicle
Measurements
   Vehicle
  Teardown
   Component
   Information
   Acquisition
            Detial System
               Bill of
              Materials
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 49

The process started with the purchase of the baseline vehicle (2010 Toyota Venza, VIN
4T3ZA3BB1AU036880). Along with the vehicle acquisition, additional BIW components
were  purchased upfront  due to  concerns  with damaging  the  BIW  panels  during
disassembly and while scanning the components.

Before  beginning  the disassembly  process,  key vehicle  measurements  were made,
including the four (4) corner vehicle weight, vehicle ground clearance, and positions of
key components (e.g., engine, fuel tank, exhaust, etc.) as assembled in the vehicle. The
global vehicle component positions were attained through a white light scanning  (WLS)
process. The same process was  used to capture the geometry of the  key components
required for the BIW NVH and crash analysis. (More discussion on WLS is captured as
part of Task 2 methodology, Section D.3)

Following the vehicle measurements, a  systematic, detailed vehicle  disassembly process
was initiated. The initial vehicle disassembly process was  initially  completed at a high
level  (e.g.  engine-transmission assembly, door assemblies, rear-hatch assembly, seats,
exhaust assembly). At each  stage of the disassembly process, the same order of events
took place: (1) WLS when applicable, (2) process mapping of part(s) to capture the part
removal process (inverse - part assembly process), (3) photographing of part assembled
and removed from the  vehicle,   and  (4) initial part attributes (i.e.,  part weight and
quantity). As each part was removed from the vehicle, it was logged into a general vehicle
level comparison bill of materials (CBOM).

After the vehicle was completely disassembled, major modules were  further broken down
into respective system groups. For example, the components within the front sub-frame
module  (e.g., brake rotors, brake calipers, drive shafts, suspension struts, springs, etc.)
were removed from the module and grouped in their respective systems (Figure XXX). A
process  similar to the vehicle disassembly process was  followed  ensuring applicable
information was captured (e.g., weight,  geometric size, process map, photographs, WLS
etc.) and recorded for each component. During this step of the process System CBOMs
were  created. All components belonging to a system (e.g. engine, transmission, body,
brakes,  fuel, etc.)  were physically  grouped together and  captured together in  system
CBOM.
 image: 








                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 50
Image D-l: 2010 Toyota Venza Front Subframe Module as Removed During the Teardown Process
                                 (Source: FEV, Inc. photo)

     D.2.2    Mass-Reduction Idea Generation
                     Detailed
                    Assembly
                   Teardown and
                                                            Initial Idea
                                                          Down-Selection
                                                            Process
  Grading of
Mass-Reduction
   Ideas
                  Mass-Reduction
                   lea Generation
Upon completion of assembly part binning and tracking, a parallel and iterative process of
teardown and mass-reduction idea generation was initiated. In general, the assembly level
teardown involved a full, detailed disassembly of parts into the lowest level manufactured
component  forms.  This  involved  both  destructive  and  non-destructive teardown
processes. For example, the fuel tank, shown in Image D-2, was fully disassembled into
the individual  manufactured components.  From  this detailed teardown  an accurate
assessment   of   the   component  materials,  weights,  hidden  design  details,   and
manufacturing processes utilized to manufacture the production stock  Venza fuel tank
were  collected. At  all teardown levels, the bill of materials  were updated tracking key
component information (e.g., parts, quantities, weights, etc.).
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 51
                    Image D-2: Toyota Venza Fuel Tank Disassembled

In parallel to hardware being disassembled, vehicle system leads (i.e., project engineers
responsible for generating mass-reduction ideas for a particular vehicle system) began the
mass-reduction  idea generation process.  The  process  started by  logging  the  Lotus
Engineering Phase 1 report mass-reduction ideas (report name "An Assessment of Mass
Reduction  Opportunities  for a  2017-2020  Model  Year Program")  into the  FEV
Brainstorming Template (FBT). The FBT contains five (5) major sections:

         •   Part 1: General Part Information Entry

         •   Part 2:  Mass Reduction Idea Entry

         •   Part 3: Primary Idea Ranking & Down-Selection Assessment

         •   Part 4: Quantitative Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Estimation Entry

         •   Part 5: Final Ranking and Down-Selection Process Assessment
In this initial idea generation phase of the analysis, Parts 1 and 2 of the brainstorming
template are completed. In addition to logging all the Lotus Engineering ideas  in the
brainstorming template, modified and new ideas were added based on industry research
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 52

by the vehicle system teams. As shown in Figure C-l, several sources were utilized for
gathering mass-reduction ideas, including automotive vehicle manufacturers, automotive
parts suppliers, raw material suppliers, benchmarking suppliers, and non-automotive part
design and manufacturing technologies. The medium for attaining the information came
from  published articles, papers and journals,  supplier websites,   supplier  published
presentation materials, consultation with suppliers, access to benchmark databases (FEV
internal,  Munro  and  Associates   internal,  EDAG  internal,   A2MAC1  purchased
subscription),  and internal brainstorming  storming sessions. In Appendix  H.3 many of
the published documents reviewed and suppliers contacted are listed.  Also  in Section F,
"Mass-Reduction and  Cost Analysis Results," a significant  amount of the  details
supporting  the  mass-reduction ideas  are captured  (e.g.,  sources  of   information,
applications in production, manufacturing process details, etc.).

All mass-reduction ideas gathered  were  entered  into their respective vehicle  system
brainstorming  templates and connected to the  BOMs via a  standardized number and
naming convention. The process of detailed assembly teardown and generating mass-
reduction ideas was an iterative process  taking approximately one-third of the overall
project duration (four months).

Upon completion of the idea generation phase,  the preliminary idea ranking and down-
selection process began. In  Part 3 of the brainstorming template (Step 1  in  the down
selection process), the ideas were ranked by the team based on a five- (5-) parameter
ranking system: (1) Manufacturing Readiness Risk, (2) Functionality Risk, (3) Estimated
Percent Change in Weight, (4) Estimated Change in Piece cost, and (5) Estimated Change
in Piece Cost  as  a Result of Tooling. As  shown in Figure D-2, there were predefined
ranking values for each  parameter. The potential ranking values for each parameter were
set considering the importance of each parameter within the group. The final idea ranking
is the multiple of the  five  parameter  rankings. The best possible score is 1  (i.e.,
Ixlxlxlxl) which is  representative  of an idea already in  high automotive production,
performs equal to or better than the current production Venza part, is  expected to yield a
20% mass-reduction,  and is cost neutral  or a saving relative to the  current production
piece  cost and tooling. The highest achievable value is 10,500 (i.e., 5x10x10x7x3) which
represents the  opposite  extreme. Since one of the boundary conditions for this analysis
was low development mass-reduction, the majority of the mass-reduction ideas selected
were conservative, thus resulting in a ranking value between 1 and 200.

A ranking  of  50  was  chosen as the  cut-off for the initial down-selection  process. Any
mass-reduction ideas  with a value  greater than  50 were  removed  from  the  analysis;
although, there were a  few  exceptions, dependent on the number of ideas for a given
system.
 image: 








                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 53
                              Primary Idea Down-Select Ranking Process
                                                                                    Imf
Manufacturing
Readiness Risk
"Possible for 201 7
Timeframe"
< 1 > High Production
Automotive
< 2 > High Production
Other
< 3 > Low Production
< 5 > Still In
Development/R&D

1
1

/ 2
3
1
Functionality Risk
(Driveability. Performance, Crash)
"Will it work"
< 1 > Equal or Better
< 2 > Vehicle Ancillary Function Degrade
< 5 > Vehicle Minor Primary Function Degrade
< 10 > Vehicle Major Primary Function
Degrade

1
1

1
1
1
Estimated Percent
Change In Weight
< 1 !• 20% or Greater
Decrease
< 2 > 10-20% Decrease
< 3 > 0-10% Decrease
< 10 > Weight Increase

3
3

1
1
3
Estimated Percent
Change In Piece Cost
< 1 > No Change or Decrease
< 2 > 0-10% Increase
< 3 > 10 25% Increase
< 7 > > 25% Increase

2
2

3
7
3
Tooling
Cost/Part
< 1 > Same or
Decrease
< 2 > 0-25%
Increase
< 3 > >25%
Increase

1
1

2
2
2
Total Ranking
Low Ranking - High
Potential Solution WE
High Ranking - Low I
Potential Solution
I
6
6
0
12
42
18
   Figure D-2: Primary Idea Down-Select Process Excerpt from FEV Brainstorming Template
     D.2.3    Preliminary Mass-Reduction and Cost Estimates
                     Mass-Reduction
                       and Cost
                       Estimates
  Final Down-
Selection of Mass-
 Reduction Ideas
Grouping of Ideas
 Based on Value
 (Cost/Kilogram)
Ideas that had an initial ranking  of less  than 50  were  considered as potential  high
probability mass-reduction ideas. The mass-reduction ideas consisted of ideas from the
Lotus Phase 1 report as well as new mass-reduction ideas.

For each of these ideas which made the first cut, the project team  then calculated the
potential mass-reduction and cost impact of each idea. These calculations were high level
calculations  based on initial information gathered for each  idea.  Sources included
benchmark data of surrogate lightweight designs, automotive material and part suppliers,
and high-level engineering estimates based  on material densities, material costs, and
anticipated manufacturing  cost  differences based  on processing  changes.  To reiterate,
these are high-level  calculations  providing  a  more  objective  measure of  the  value
(cost/kilogram) for each mass-reduction idea.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 54

The mass-reduction and cost estimates were added beside each relevant idea in the FEV
brainstorming matrix (Part 4 of the  matrix). Using the estimated  mass, estimated cost
impact, and Total Ranking (Part 3 of FBT), cost-versus-mass and Total Ranking-versus-
mass calculations were made (Figure D-3). The calculated values, found in Part 5 of the
brainstorming template, were used in the final down-selection process when comparing
competing  mass  reduction ideas on a  similar part.  For example,  several alternative
material choices  were available for brake caliper pistons (e.g., forge aluminum, cast
aluminum,  phenolic  plastic, titanium) with  compatible "Total Ranking" values, which
made it difficult to select the best option based on the preliminary  ranking process. The
preliminary quantitative calculations (i.e., cost impact/mass-reduction, total ranking/mass
reduction) provided additional information required to help select the best idea(s) moving
forward in the analysis.



Total Ranking
Low Ranking - High
Potential Solution
High Ranking - Low
Potential Solution

6
6
0
12

Estimate Weight and Cost
Impact on "Best Ranked Idea(s)"
(Total Ranking < 50)
Estimated
Incremental
Weight Change
"kg"


0.048
0.228
6.064
2.282

Estimated
Piece Cost
Impact


-$0.81
-$1.63
$0.67
-$3.02

Final Idea Down-Selection
Using Total Ranking, Unit Weight Save Cost, and Ranking/Incremental Weight Change, Identify Concept
for Evaluation
Unit
Weight
Save Cost
"$/kg"


-$16.97
-$7.15
$0.11
-$1.32

Ranking/Incremental
Weight Change
"Total Ranking #/kg"


125.000
26.316
0.000
5.259


Decision Supporting Information
(if Required)




approx = 2009 Toyota Camry (F 117-108)
given to Manfred@Munro to investigate: assume
hardware costs? machining?
Selected Idea
Add "1a,1b,1c,1d,X
or D" in box for
Selected Concept


X

la
1c

 Figure D-3: Estimated Weight and Cost Impact (Part 4) and Final Ideal Down-Selection (Part 5)
                       Excerpt from FEV Brainstorming Template
In many cases  team members considered together the preliminary rankings (Part 3 of
FBT), the magnitude of the mass-reduction savings (Part 4 of the FBT), and the value of
the mass-reduction ideas (Part 5 of the FBT) to determine the final mass-reduction ideas
to move forward at the component and assembly level.

Upon  completion of the  final  down-selection  process,  mass-reduction ideas were
grouped/binned together based on their value (i.e., cost/kilogram). There are five (5) cost
groups total, plus one group for tracking decontenting ideas that reduce mass, but at the
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 55

sacrifice of function and/or performance (Figure D-4). Decontenting ideas were tracked
in the analysis but never included in the final calculations.

At this stage  of the analysis, only mass-reduction ideas were captured.  These are not
necessarily complete mass-reduced component  or assembly solutions, as  several ideas
may have been combined to formulate a component or assembly solution. The process of
combining ideas occurs in the next phase of the analysis, which is referred to as the mass-
reduction optimization phase.
    Mass-Reduction Idea Grouping
    •Five cost groups were established to group ideas based on their average
    cost/kilogram weight save:
    Level A: < $0.00/kg (i.e., ideas that either save money or add zero cost)
    Level B: >$0.00 to < $1.00
    Level C: >$1.00 to < $2.50
    Level D: >$2.50 to < $4.88
    Level X: > $4.88

    • One additional category exists, which is independent of the cost per weight
    save ratio. This sixth category is referred to as the "Decontenting" category
    (Level Z) and is reserved for ideas which degrade a systems
    function/performance by employing the  mass reduction idea.

    • Decontenting can occur at various functional levels: (1) comfort convenience
    components (e.g. cup holders, DVD  player, storage concealer), (2) secondary
    support components (e.g. spare tire, jack), or (3) at a primary function level
    (e.g. downsized engine w/ less horsepower)
      Figure D-4: Mass-Reduction Idea Grouping/Binning Bases on Mass-Reduction Value
     D.2.4   Mass-Reduction and Cost Optimization Process
      Optimization         Optimization                        Optimization
        ,__              , __                             ' , __            selection ot
       of Mass-   ^^      of Mass-   ^^    Optimization of         Of Mass-          Qntimijed  ^^
                                      iiA^^^ n^.^..,	1         Darliirarl          fcT|**	4 = W
       Reduced    ^.     Reduced    ^.    Mass-Reduced         Reduced
      Vehicle Sub-          Vehicle          vehicle systems         Vehicle
      _ •               _ .                               _ .               Solution
      Subsystems          Subsystem                          Solutions
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 56

The next step in the process was to take the down-selected mass-reduction ideas and find
an optimal solution based on mass and cost.  The goal was to combine as many mass-
reduction ideas to achieve the targeted 20% vehicle mass-reduction, at the lowest possible
incremental cost,  at the lowest 2017 production implementation ready risk (design  and
manufacturing).

To  achieve an optimized vehicle solution,  mass-reduction  ideas were combined to
formulate mass-reduced components and assemblies (also referred to as sub-subsystems).
Mass-reduced components and assemblies were combined into mass-reduced vehicle
subsystems; mass-reduced subsystems were combined to  create mass-reduced vehicle
system solutions;  and, finally, mass-reduced vehicle systems solutions were combined to
formulate optimized mass-reduced vehicle solutions.

Upfront it is very difficult to predict which components, subsystem, or systems offer the
best value relative to mass-reduction until they are evaluated in detail against one another.
From the mass-reduction idea level to the vehicle level, all possible combinations were
reviewed and compared for the best value.

To help  explain the optimization methodology, a mock brake system example will be
used as the reference system. The same process is employed for all vehicle systems. The
starting point is combining mass-reduction ideas into various component and assembly
mass-reduced options. Shown in Figure D-5, the front rotor has 10 different ideas which
can be combined into several different combinations  to create different mass-reduced
rotors  with different  cost impacts  (i.e.,  cost/kilogram).  Note,  not all ideas can  be
combined together, as some  are  alternative options within the same or different cost
group. Similar to how  mass-reduction ideas  are  grouped/binned into different value
groups, the sample methodology applies to  components/assemblies, subsystems,  and
systems.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 57
Mass-Reduction Ideas => Mass-Reduced Component/ Assembly Options
( Exarrmle: Front Rotor)
Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"


A
<$0

IDEA#1 ^
Reduce Rotor
Thickness
IDEA#2 ^ j
Reduce Rotor
Diameter

RotorO
#1 is pla
the Low
Solut
Assem
Compo
Mas
Reduc
Mat


ption
ced in
Cost
bly/
nent
s
iton
rx
Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

B
>$o.oo -
<$1.00


IDEA #3 "Vj
Vent/Slot Rotor I
IDEA #4
Cross-Drill Rotor
IDEA #5 ^
Drill Holes in
Rotor Top Hat
Surface



Cost Group: C
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
Cc
>$1.00-
<$2.50
r ROTOR ^
Option # 1
IDEA#1
IDE A #2
IDE A #3
IDE A #4
IDE A #5
IDE A #6 +
IDE A #7 +
$1.35/kg

Cost Group: C
Subgroup C
Range >$1.00-
"$/kg" S$2.50
|r IDEA m \j
II Rotor ID Scaliping 1
1 (Hat Perimeter)
^ IDEA #7 \|
Rotor CD
Scaliping
J

\-
^
Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

D
>$2.50-
<$4.88

C IDEA #8 ""
Change to
Ceramic Rotor
v J



Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
De
>$2.50-
<$4.88
r ROTOR ^
Option #2
IDEA#1
IDE A #2
IDE A #3
IDE A #4
IDE A #5
IDE A #6 +
IDE A #7 +
$3.56/kg
Cost Group: X
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

X
>$4.88


IDEA #9
1 2 PC Rotor Design
(Iron&CF)
1 J
( IDEA #10 ^
Change to
Composite Rotor
v J



Rotor Option
#2 is placed in
the
Engineered
Solution
Assembly/
Component
Mass
Reduciton
Matrx
           Figure D-5: Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Optimization Process

Two sets of boundary conditions were established to standardize how mass-reduced ideas
were grouped into component/assembly solutions.  The first set of boundary conditions
drives  toward a more  cost conscious solution labeled the "Low  Cost  Solution." The
second set of boundary conditions  allows more expensive mass-reduction ideas  to be
integrated with lower cost ideas and is referred to  as the "Engineered Solution." These
same two sets of boundary conditions apply throughout the analysis at all levels (i.e., the
subsystem, system, and vehicle level).

The simplest way to explain the difference between  the two methodologies is with the aid
of Figure D-5. In Option #1, Ideas #1 through #7 were summed to develop a mass-reduce
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 58

front rotor. The cost impact is $1.35/kg, which puts the component solutions into  Cost
Group C. Because all the ideas included in the combined solution are taken from the cost
group bins equal to or lower than Cost Group C (i.e., Cost Group A, Cost Group B and
Cost Group C), the final solution is considered a "Low Cost Solution." In Option #2, Idea
#9 is  grouped with Ideas #1 through #7 to create a mass-reduced front rotor falling in
Cost Group D ($3.56/kg).  Because the mass-reduced rotor combines more  expensive
ideas  (Cost Group X) with better value ideas (Cost Groups A, B, and C), the solution is
termed an Engineered Solution. An Engineered Solution can include mass-reduction ideas
above and below the final solution.

At the completion of idea combining phase of the analysis, various brake subsystems  exist
(e.g. Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem,  Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem,
Parking Brake and Actuation  Subsystem, Brake  Actuation Subsystem) populated  with
mass-reduced component solutions. Each subsystem has an Engineering Solution matrix
and a Low Cost Solution matrix. The Engineering  Solution Matrix (Figure D-6) has
mass-reduced  component/assembly  solutions  built  using the  Engineered  Solution
methodology. The intent is to try and have a component mass-reduction solution for every
cost group, though this  was very difficult within the timing  constraints of the project.
Conversely,  a Low Cost Solution matrix  exists, built using the Low Cost Solution
methodology.

The same methodology for combining mass-reduction  ideas into component/assembly
mass-reduced  solutions  is  used for  combining  components/assemblies into brake
subsystems.  The only difference,  starting at the  subsystem build-up level and moving
forward,  engineered component  solutions  are used to  create  engineered subsystem
solutions  and subsystem engineered  solutions are  used to  create engineered  system
solutions.  The subscript "e"  (e.g., Ae,  Be, Ce, De,  and Xe) identifies the component ideas
as Engineered Solutions (Figure D-6). The same principles apply for Low Cost Solutions:
subscript "c" identifies Low Cost Solutions.
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 59
Components
Included In
Subsystem
1 . Mass-Reduced
Rotors
2. Mass-Reduced
Dust Shields
3. Mass-Reduced
Brake Capilers
4. Mass-Reduced
Pad Kits
5. Mass-Reduced
Caliper Brackets
•Same Pro<
for Low C
Subs
•Built-up u;
Solution
Assem
Mass
Reduced (MR) Componenets Options => Mass-Reduced Subsystem Options
(Example: Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem (FRDSS) )
Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

Ae
<$0

I Rotor
Option #2


Brake Caliper
Option #2

Option #2
[Caliper Bracket 1
Option #2

:ess Repeated
ost Solution
ystems
;ing Low Cost
Component
bly Matrix





Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

Be
>$o.oo -
<$1.00

Dust Shield
Option #2


Brake Caliper
Option #3


Caliper Bracket
Option #3




Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
Be
>$o.oo -
<$1.00
r~ ~\
' FRDSS Option
#2
Rotor #2 +
Dust Sh eld #3 +
Brake Caliper #4 +
Pad Kit #2
Caliper Brkt #4
$0.93/kg



Cost Group: C
Subgroup
Ce
Range >$1.00-
"$/kg" <$2.50

Rotor
Option #3

Brake Caliper 1
Option #4

Caliper Bracket 1
Option #4


V

1
,
V
Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"

De
>$2.50-
<$4.88

Rotor
Option #4

Dust Shield
Option #3

Brake Caliper
Option #5


Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"$/kg"
De
>$2.50-
<$4.88
FRDSS Option '
#4
Rotor #3 +
Dust Shield #4 +
Brake Caliper #6 +
Pad Kit #2
Caliper Brkt #2
$4.40/kg
J


Cost Group: X
Subgroup Xe
Range
>$4.88

Dust Shield
Option #4

1 Brake Caliper 1
Option #6

Pad Kit
Option #3






      Figure D-6: Subsystem Mass-Reduction Optimization Process - Engineered Solution

At the brake  system level, mass-reduced Brake Engineered Subsystem  Solutions are
grouped to create Brake Engineered System Solutions for several Cost Groups as shown
in Figure D-7. The same process applies for Low Cost Solutions. The same process was
followed for all 17 vehicle systems.
 image: 








                                                            Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 60
       Subsystems Included In
           System

     1. Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
     Subsystem (FRDSS)

     2. Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
     Subsystem (RRDSS)

     3. Parking Brake and Actuation
     Subsystem (PBAS)

     4. Brake Actuation Subsystem
     (BAS)
     5. Hydraulic Power Brake
     Subsystem (HPBS)

     6. Brake Controls Subsystem
     (BCS)
Mass-Reduced Subsystem Options => Mass-Reduced System Options
(Example: Brake System)
Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
Ae
<So
IFRDSS
Option #1
IRRDSS
Option #1

1 BAS 1
Option #1
HPBS
Option #1



ess Repeated
ost Solutio
terns
ing Low C
Subsystem
3ly Matrix
n
ost

Cost Group: B
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
Be
>$o.oo -
<$1.00
IFRDSS
Option #2



PBAS ||
Option #2


I HPBS
Option #2



Cost Group: A
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
Ae
>$o.oo -
<$1.00
Brake System
Option #1
FRDSS #1 +
RRDSS #1 +
PBAS #2 +
BAS#1
HPBSffl
$-0.26/kg
^ J



Cost Group: C
Subgroup Ce
Range >$l.OO -
"S/kg" £$2.50

BAS
Option #2
f HPBS 1
[ Option #3 J

1

r]^\
W
Cost Group: D
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
De
>$2.50-
<$4.88
FRDSS
Option #3
RRDSS
Option #2



BAS
Option #3

Cost Group: C
Subgroup
Range
"S/kg"
Ce
>Si.oo-
<$2.50
s \
Brake System
Option #2
FRDSS #2 +
RRDSS #3 +
PBAS #2 +
BAS #3
HPBS #2
$2.33/kg
^. J

Cost Group: X
Subgroup Xe
"7?, > 54.88
S/kg

IRRDSS
Option #3

BAS
Option #4
HPBS
Option #4


        Figure D-7: System Mass-Reduction Optimization Process - Engineered Solution
The vehicle optimization process is completed using a similar methodology as previously
detailed. Four different vehicle optimization processes are performed. Similar to the
subsystem and system levels  above  Low Cost Vehicle  Optimized Solutions  (C) and
Engineering Vehicle  Optimized (E) Solutions  are developed. In addition a Low Cost
Vehicle Optimized Solution is  developed using system solutions from both the Low Cost
systems matrix and Engineering Solution systems matrix; designated Low Cost Vehicle
Optimized Solution (C&E) in  Figure D-8. Similarly an Engineering Vehicle Optimized
Solution is developed using system solutions from both the Low Cost systems matrix and
Engineering Solution systems matrix.
 image: 








                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                           March 30, 2012
                                                                                Page 61

Figure  D-8 shows  the  various  optimized vehicle  solutions  plotted in  terms  of
cost/kilogram versus  %Vehicle mass-reduction. Based on the data, the team chose the
Low Cost Vehicle Optimized Solution (C&E), which was estimated to reduce the vehicle
mass by 20% at an estimated cost of $0.82/kilogram.
                    Toyota Venza Mass-Reduction Versus S/kg
    $5.000
2
g>  $2.000
5
o
0
                                                                          —*— Low Ccst Solution [C&E)

                                                                          —»—Enginea&d Solution
                                                                            (C&E)
                                                                            Low Cost Solution (C)

                                                                            EngineHed Solution |E1
                           Percent Vehicle Mass Reduction
 Figure D-8: Potential Mass-Reduction Vehicle Solutions Developed Through the Mass-Reduction
                                   Optimization Process
     D.2.5    Detailed Mass-Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis
  failed Mass-
  Reduction
Calculations and
  Feasibility
   Analysis
                                        Detailed Mass-
                                        Reduction Cost
                                          Analysis
Development of
Final Cost Curve
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 62

Upon the selection  of the optimized vehicle solution, and the  mass-reduction ideas
associated with the  optimized vehicle solution, the detail analysis could begin. In the
detail mass-reduction feasibility analysis additional engineering work was employed to
verify the mass-reduction ideas  were feasible both from the design and manufacturing
feasibility perspective. The additional work was centered  on expanding the supporting
portfolio of information gathered on the mass-reduction ideas using the  same types of
sources and methodology  as  used  in  the initial idea  generation  phase including:
researching  existing industry published works in mass-reduction, reference data from
production benchmark databases, and speaking with material suppliers, automotive part
suppliers, and alternative transportation industry suppliers. The research, the partnerships
involved in the analysis, study assumptions, and calculations are all discussed in detail in
Section F ("Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis Results"). This includes the assumptions
on  those systems (e.g., engine, brakes,  suspension,  fuel, body-in-white) which  took
additional mass-reduction credit based on the entire vehicle getting lighter (i.e., mass
compounding credit).

In some cases, the ideas originally selected for the detailed analysis did not work out.
When this  occurred, the team returned to the brainstorming template for similar value
mass-reduction ideas to try and ensure their system target mass-reductions and costs were
maintained.  In other cases new alternative, better value ideas were discovered as  part of
the detailed analysis. When this occurred, the new, greater value mass-reduction ideas
replaced the  original  lessor  value  mass-reduction   ideas. From  a  mass-reduction
perspective, some systems went up slightly from the original mass-reduction optimization
model while others came down  by similar amounts. Overall the difference between the
originally predicted  mass-reduction, from  the  optimized  vehicle  solution, to the  final
detailed model, for  all systems other than Body Group  -A- (body-in-white, bumpers,
closures) was approximately +1% (greater mass-reduction for the detailed analysis).

The original target for the Body  Group -A- system analysis was approximately 20% from
a system perspective, or 6.2% relative to the total vehicle mass-reduction. With  project
timing constraints, the Body Group -A- system mass-reduction system target was reduced
to 16%, or 5% relative to the vehicle. The achieved Body Group -A- mass-reduction was
12.8% relative to  the system, 4% relative to the vehicle.  Details on the body-in-white
targets can be found in the following section (Section D.3).

Complete details  on the costing methodology utilized in  this analysis can be found in
Section E. In addition a summary of the costing results  can be found in Section F.I.
Details on the costing assumptions made in the analysis can also be found in the various
system, subsystem, and sub-subsystem sections within Section F of the report.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 63

In summary, there was a shift in the cost impact between the original optimized vehicle
solution and the final detailed solution. The original optimized vehicle solution predicted
a cost increase of $0.82/kg for a 20% vehicle mass-reduction.  In the final detailed
analysis, a 18.5% mass-reduction yielded a $0.29/kilogram savings. The difference is not
so surprising as the inflection point in Figure D-10  is right  around the  16% mass-
reduction  point. At 15%vehicle mass-reduction  there  is an  approximate savings of
$0.33/kg.  At 18%  vehicle mass reduction there is  a positive cost impact (i.e., cost
increase) of approximately $0.66/kg.

Because  many of the detailed costing spreadsheet  documents generated  within this
analysis are too large to be shown in their entirety,  electronic  copies can be accessed
through     EPA's      electronic      docket     ID     EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799
(http;//www.regulations.gov).
D.3   Project Task Two - Body-In-White Systems Mass-Reduction and Cost
Analysis

The following section deals with detail methodology in developing the mass-reduction for
Body Group -A- [body-in-white (BIW) structures, bumpers, and closures]. As mentioned
in Section D.I,  the portion of the analysis was subcontracted to EDAG due to their vast
experience in BIW design and development.

To keep with the integrity of the work performed by EDAG, their report was included in
the overall report in  its entirety.
     D.3.1    Introduction

The team evaluated the body system of a Toyota Venza using computer-aided engineering
(CAE). vehicle noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH)  and crash load cases were built
based on physical NVH test requirements and regulatory crash and safety requirements
respectively. CAE baseline models for each of the NVH and crash-load cases were built
and simulated to correlate the CAE results with the test results of a similar vehicle (in this
case, the 2009  Toyota Venza with panoramic roof). Upon verifying the  model quality
based on EDAG CAE guidelines and meeting the correlation targets (<5% difference),
the EDAG baseline model was treated as the baseline reference for further development
of NVH and crash-iteration models and lightweight optimization processes.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 64

A detailed CAE evaluation of the body structure for the lightweight design of the Toyota
Venza is described in this section. The weight reduction and cost effect of the lightweight
design are  also presented, along with the CAE  evaluation cases including structural
strength (torsion,  bending, and modal) and 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).
D.4   Body System CAE Evaluation Process

A CAE  evaluation was conducted based  on EDAG's standard best practice of re-
engineering process. It includes vehicle teardown, parts scanning, and data collection of
vehicle parts to build a full vehicle CAE model without the use of actual design drawings
or CAD data. The typical CAE evaluation process followed for this project is shown in
Figure D-9. Various  inputs, outputs, and tools used for the steps in  each process are
provided in Figure D-10.
        Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
                  Figure D-9: CAE Evaluation Process and Components
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 65
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza

t
ut
>
Vehicle Tear Down
S
Physical
Property
Repair
Manuals
Systems and
Parts Weight
and
Dimensions
\ Vehicle Scan
Body
Structure
Other parts
(Powertrain,
Chassis. 1
Systems and
Parts Scan
Geometry
Weld points
Locations
>8uik) Initul
FEA Model
Material
Coupon
Scan Data
EDAG CAE
Modeling
Guidelines
««alBlP
FEA Model
Validate a
Material Spec
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
>FEAModel ^V Crash FEA
Validation J Model Butt)
Physical Body
In-Prime |BIP|
Testing
NVHand
Stiffness
results
correlation
E DAG Expertise in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
S
j
E
EDAG Tear
Down/
Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Services
White Light
Scan
Ansa
Advanced
EOAGFEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA
Model
> Crash FEA \
Model
CompansKxi j
Physical
Vehicle
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
* Delme ^
} Comparison
' Factors ^ifl

intrusion
Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle integration i Expertise
Ansa
Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Mode! Quality
Check
LS-Oyna
A3 Animator
EDAG
Results
DataBase
and Tools

              Figure D-10: CAE Evaluation Process Inputs, Outputs, and Tools
D.5   Vehicle Teardown

Phase 1 : Data Generated from Toyota Venza

t
Ut
s
J

Physical
Property
Repair
Manuals
Systems and
Pans weight
and
Dimensions
EDAOE
EDAG Tear
Down/
Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
Models
\v. . N BuHdmmal \ FEA Model \ Cf.shFEA \ CH££* \r<1£±!Lr
^ «,n^ FEAMOtfe, \ Vafctotlon ^^^ >c^MI>c™<»£*' 3
Body Material Physical Body-
Structure. Coupon in-Prime (BIP)
Other parts Scan Data Testing
(Powertrain. EOAGCAC
Chassis. .) Modeling
Guidelines
Systemsand MNtalBB? NVHand
PartsScan FEA Model Stiffness
Geometry Validated results
weld points Material Spec, correlation
Locations
lertse in virtual validation and Model Generation
Ansa
White Light Advanced Sensitivity
Scan EDAG FEA Analysis
Software for Software
Model Quality
Check

EOAGCAE Physical
Guidelines Vehicle
Crash
initial Crash Crash results intrusion
vehicle FEA Comparison values
Model Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Ansa
Advanced EDAG
EDAG FEA ^1^0, Resu«s
Software for DataBase
Model Qualrty and Tools
Check

                            Figure D-ll: Vehicle Teardown

A Toyota 2010 Venza was  purchased and completely  disassembled by skilled body
technicians. Toyota body repair manuals were used to aid in disassembly of vehicle. Part
details and metadata crucial for building  the  CAE model (such as part weight and
thickness) were obtained and recorded in an assembly hierarchy (see Figure D-12).
 image: 








                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 66
                                                      ¥
              Vehicle Database (OB)
                • Pictures
                • Part Id. Part Name, Gauge
                •Part Weight, Material
                         Figure D-12: Vehicle Teardown Process

A few more disassembled body parts used in the CAE model are shown in Appendix A
(see Section A. 1).

EDAG's project scope was to calculate a reduction in body weight for the EDAG baseline
model; major  subassembly weights were calculated and tabulated. This information was
used as the baseline weights in the CAE evaluation process (Table D-l).
Area
System
Closures
BIW
BIW Extra
Bumper
Sub-system
Door Frt
Door RR
Hood
Tailgate
Fenders
Sub-Total
Underbody Asy
Front Structure
Roof Asy
Bodyside Asy
Ladder Asy
Sub-Total
Radiator Vertical Support
Compartment Extra
Shock Tower Xmbr Plates
Sub-Total
Bumper frt
Bumper rear
Sub-Total
Edag Target System Total
Baseline
System Mass
53.2
42.4
17.8
15.0
6.8

40.2
42.0
31.3
161.9
102.6

0.7
4.5
3.1

5.1
2.4


Sub-Total





135.3





378.0



8.2


7.5
528.9
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 67
                             Table D-l: Baseline Weights
D.6   Vehicle Scanning


K u
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
^^^^^^ Models
1 Vehicle rear Down
Phyriol
Property
t R*p*ir
Mwiu*It
—
Systems and
Parts Weight
Output and
Dimensions
•

EDAG El
EDAG Tear
TOOlS Down/
Used Benchmark
Guidelines
Garage
I Services



Body
Structure
Other pcrts
Chassis. 1
Systems end
PamJcan
Geometry
Weld points
locations
wruem Virtual Vain
White Light
Scan
V ButfdlrMul X FEA Model X Oath FEA X ClJttEfA \r
> FEA-od,, > v^wn >Mod.,8«i« >co^;w >cr£xr J
MMerwl Kriyncil Body-
Coupon in-Prime (SIP)
Son 0»t« >-.•.-,-
COM CM
Modelmi
Guidelines
m*.iBii> NVHand
FEA Model Stiffness
v»lid«te<) resu«s
MMerinspec correlation
ibon and Model Generation
Ansa
Advanced Sensitivity
EDAG FEA Analysis
Software (or Software
Model Quality
Check

EDAG CAE Physical
Guidelines Vehicle
Crash
Initial Crash Crash results intrusion
Vehicle FEA Comparison v.ioei
Model Cr«sh Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Ansa
Advanced EDAG
EOAGFEA JS22J, Results
Software for DataBase
Model Quality and Tools
Check

                            Figure D-13: Vehicle Scanning

One of the most critical inputs for building the finite element analysis model (FEA) was
the digital format of the geometry of the body parts.  The geometry of each part was
obtained by  using White Light  Scanning (WLS) techniques and  stored in stereo
lithography (STL) format. As the vehicle was disassembled, the scanning was performed
simultaneously with the vehicle teardown process starting  with the full vehicle before
disassembling,  then progressing  to the subsystem level, and lastly moving  to  the
component level.

Even though the WLS focused on body parts, it also included the powertrain, chassis, and
miscellaneous parts needed for a full vehicle FEA model. The parts required for scanning
were determined  based on the analysis load cases (NVH and crash) considered for the
CAE evaluation. The parts required for scanning were used  to determine the FEA model
for analyzing the  NVH and crash load cases. Figure D-14 shows a typical methodology
of identifying the parts  for scanning.  In addition to part geometry, the part connection
(such as location and type, e.g., spot weld, seam weld, laser weld), dimensions (e.g., weld
diameter, weld length), and characteristics (e.g., bushing) were also captured during the
scanning process.
 image: 








                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                              Page 68
                                I  Sel Target FEA Load Cases J
                                       ~T
                            [ Identify system configuration for Load Cases J

Reference NVH
FEA Models
I Reference Crash
FEA Models
V
Analyze
Stress & Strain Density
& Concentration for
. Major Systems .

Analyze
Load Path & Deforming
Behavior for
. Major Systems ,
                              Inlegralmg & Filtenng Major & Minor Parts
                                   Identify & Determine
                            minimum required sub-systems and components
             Figure D-14: White Light Scanning Part Identification Methodology

A few sample images of raw STL data of the body structure parts obtained by WLS are
shown in Figure A.2.1 in Appendix A. An example of the weld point locations captured
from the scanning process is also shown in Figure A.2.2 in Appendix A.
D.7    Initial FE Model

A finite element (FE) model was constructed using finite element mesh (from geometry
data), part-to-part connection data, and part characteristics (material data). The geometry
and  connection data were  obtained  from the scanning process. The part material  data,
such as steel grades, were obtained by conducting material tests on the corresponding part
samples.
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 69
         Input
         Tools
         Used
Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza Phase 2: Data Generated from the PEA

• >
Vehicle Tear Down
s
Physical
Property
t Rep«r
Mmah


Systems and
Parts Weight
Ut and
Dimensions

Models
> \^ BualdMiil \ FEAModel \ CrashFEA
" J FEA Model / VaMlUon y Model Butt)
Bod,
Structure
Other parts
(Powertrain,
Cham-, I

Systems end
Parts Scan
Geometry
Weld points
locations
E DAG Expertise in Virtual val
EDAG Tear
S Down;
J Benchmark
Guidelines
r Garage
Services

White Light
Scan


Mater ill
Coupon
Scan Data
E DAG WE
Modflin,
Guidelines
initial BlP
FEA Model
Validated
Material Spec

labon and Model Ge:
An sa
Advanced
EOAGFEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
Physical Body
In-Prime |BIP|
Testing



NVHand
Stiffness
results
correlation

mHa

Sensitivity
Analysis
Software

EDAGCAE
Guidelines



initial Crash
Vehicle FEA
Model


>Cr«»hFEA >
Model
CompaniKxi j

Physical
Vehicle
Crash


Crash results
Comparison


. Define ^B
} Comparison
' Factors ^<fl






intrusion
Values
Crash Pulse

EOAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle integration) Expertise
Ansa
Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Mode! Quality
j Check

LS-Oyna
A3 Animator



EDAG
Results
DataBase
ana Tools

                            Figure D-15: Initial FE Model
      D.7.1 Material Data
The Toyota body repair manual[1] was used to identify the material grades of the major
parts of the body structure. The material grades found in the manual were validated by
material coupon testing. The material data of the remaining parts were also obtained from
coupon testing. A picture of the samples that were taken from the body is shown in Figure
A.3.1 in Appendix A.
      D.7.2 FE Modeling from Scan Data

A commercially available FE meshing tool (ANSA) was used to generate FE mesh from
the raw STL geometry data obtained from WLS. A schematic of the process of meshing
from raw STL data is shown in Image D-3.
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 70
                    Image D-3: Mesh Generation from STL Raw Data

The raw STL data (e.g., the fuel tank) was imported into the meshing tool. The geometry
was then cleaned and meshed as per EDAG meshing quality standards. The meshed parts
were assembled by using the connection data captured from the scanning process. EDAG
CAE guidelines[2][3] were followed in building the complete vehicle assembly hierarchy.
Image D-4  shows the completely assembled FE model of  the Toyota Venza  body
structure.
                  Image D-4: FE Model of Toyota Venza Body Structure
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 71

The initial FE model was built with body-in-prime (BIP) assembly for NASTRAN for
NVH load cases of bending stiffness, torsion stiffness, and natural  frequency modal
analysis. It consisted of all the body-in-white (BIW) parts (welded body parts) and a few
bolt-on parts needed for NVH analysis. The gauge (thickness) and material data for each
part were incorporated  into the model accordingly. Image D-5 represents the gauge map
for the  BIP. Image D-6 represents the material grades map for BIP, which,  with the
exception of the aluminum rear bumper, is made up of all steel components.
          0.5mm to 0.8 mm
                                                                 Above 2.00mm

                                                      1.60mm to 2.00 mm
\
                      Image D-5: Gauge Map of Baseline BIP Model
 image: 








                                                                                   Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                                                              Page 72
                              Image D-6: Material Map of Baseline BIP Model
D.8     FEA Model Validation—Baseline  NVH Model
                  Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
                                    Phase 2. Data Generated from the FEA
                                    Models
                         Phytttl

                         Property
                         Repair
                         V!",.!-.
                        Physical Body
                        in.Prime (BIP
                          Testing
  Body
 Structure
Other parts
(Powertrwn.
 Coupon
Scan Data
EDAG CAS
Madeline
Guidellnei
                       Systems and
                       Pansweigm
                          and
                       Ditnensions
Systems and
 Pacts Scan
 Geometry
Weld points
 locations
             Initial BIP
             FEA Model
             validated
            Material Spec
            NVH and
            Stiffness
             results
            correlation
Initial Crasn
Vernde FEA
  Modal
Crash results
Conpatoofl
                            EOAG Expertise in Virtual validation and Model Gi
                                                                          EOAG Engine«nng (CAE jndVehiaelnleor»on)Exp«rti!e
                        EDAG Tear
                         Down/
                        Benchmark
                        Guidelines
              Ansa
             Advanced
            EDAGFEA
            So (ware for
            Model Quality
              Check
                                       Ansa
                                     Advanced
                                     EDAG FEA
                                     Software for
                                    Mode) Quality
                                       Check
            Sensitivity
             Analysis
             Software
              LS-Dyna
             A3 Animator
                        Figure D-16: FEA Model Validation: Baseline NVH Model
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 73

The initial FE model needed to be validated in order to obtain a realistic analytical model
that represented the  real-world test vehicle. The following NVH and static  load cases
were chosen to validate the initial FE model.

   •  Static Bending Stiffness

   •  Static Torsional Stiffness

   •  Modal frequency

The validation  was carried  out  by correlating  the analytical results of each load case
against the corresponding physical test results.

      D.8.1  Model Statistics

The NVH model consisted of the BIP model including radiator support, glass, front, and
rear bumpers. The meshed model of the Toyota Venza baseline model contained 434 parts
made up of 720,323 shell elements and 7,913 solid elements.

The necessary load case  specific boundary conditions were incorporated into the model
using a commercially available pre-post tool and then analyzed using the MSC Nastran
solver. The model setup in terms of boundary and load conditions is explained in detail
for each of the NVH load cases.  Figure D-7 shows the NVH model  before incorporating
the boundary and load conditions.
                      Image D-7: Toyota Venza Initial NVH Model
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 74
D.8.1.1 Static Bending Stiffness
In the bending stiffness model, the BIP was constrained and loaded as shown in Image D-
8. The rear-left shock tower was constrained in the x-, y-, and z-axes; the rear-right shock
tower was constrained in the x- and z-axes; the front left shock tower was constrained in
the  y- and z-axes; and the front right shock  tower was constrained in the z-axis. A
bending load of 2,224N was applied at the center of the front and rear seats.
                       FORCE - 2 22e»03
                                          FORCE • 2 22e*03
           Image D-8: Loads and Constraints on NVH Model For Bending Stiffness

The calculation of bending stiffness was done by measuring Z-displacement in the rocker
section area, noting the maximum displacement on each measured location.
                      Bending Stiffness =
                                              Total Force
                                         Maxium Displacement
D.8.1.2 Static Torsion Stiffness

The torsion stiffness BIP model was constrained and loaded, as shown in Image D-9. The
rear-left shock tower was constrained in the x-, y-, and z-axes; the rear-right shock tower
was  constrained in the x and  z-axes. Additionally, the center of the  front bumper is
constrained  in the  z-direction. Vertical  loads  of  1,200N  were  applied  in opposite
directions on the left and  right-front shock  towers. Torsional stiffness was  calculated
from the applied load and deflection.
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 75
                            FORCE = 1.20e*03
           Image D-9: Load and Constraints on NVH Model For Torsional Stiffness

The calculation of torsion stiffness is done by calculating the angular displacement of the
BIP. The average of the Z-displacement (Z) at the shock tower is calculated, and then the
distance between the shock towers (D) was measured. The angular displacement (w) is
calculated as ATAN (Z/D).
                Torsion Stiffness = Total Force * Angular Displacement
D.8.1.3 Modal Frequency

For a vehicle to be dynamically stiff, it is important to have high natural frequencies for
the global modes. In the modal frequency analysis model, MSC Nastran SOL 103[4], was
used with no boundary conditions.  It is  a free-free (no boundary condition, no initial
condition) natural frequency analysis within a given frequency range of 0-100Hz. This
was defined with the help of the NASTRAN PARAM control cards in which the input
and output requirements were embedded with the EIGRL card.

      D.8.2 FE Model Validation

The validation of the CAE model was carried out in three different steps based on EDAG
expertise and engineering knowledge. A  summary of the model validation and EDAG
CAE baseline model creation is depicted in Figure D-17.
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 76




2009 Venza
Test Data


2009 Venza
CAE Model


2010 Venza
Full Roof Model



—


Step I
Physical Property

Physical Test
+ *
Test BIP
Configuration
— *
Test Results
Static Stiffness & Modal

Step II
Build Analytical Model

Analytical Test
* +
Create EDAG BIP
Test Configuration



Run Analytical Test
Compare to Physical Test Results
I
Correlate Model

Step III
Build Baseline NVH Model

Analytical Test
* *
Create EDAG BIP
EDAG Configuration
	 »
Run Analytical Test
Establish Baseline NVH Results




                   Figure D-17: Process Flow to Build Baseline Model

Step-I: NVH test  setup.  Collect NVH test results for the 2009  Toyota Venza with
panoramic roof.
                                                 w
Step-II: Construction and correlation of NVH  model. Correlate the CAE model for the
2009 Toyota Venza with panoramic roof with the test results.

Step-III: EDAG CAE baseline model. Convert the CAE model to a 2010 Toyota Venza
with full roof model to build the baseline model.

The model results were then compared with the analytical test results, thus establishing
the EDAG CAE baseline model.

       D.8.3 Step  I: NVH Test Setup

A 2009 Toyota Venza BIW with  panoramic roof was setup with the necessary test
equipment  for static bending,  static torsion,  and dynamic modal measurements. The
testing was conducted at the Ford Motor Company NVH labs.
D.8.3.1. Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup

For testing purposes, the vehicle  was  instrumented with the necessary deformation
measuring gages at the selected locations. The bending test setup is shown in Image D-
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 77

10. The deformations at different locations were measured by applying a 2,200N force at
the left and right rocker sections of the front door opening.
     Bending Stiffness Testing Setup
               BIP with the displacement 9*ges
                       Image D-10: Bending Stiffness Testing Setup

The test vehicle was the 2009 Toyota Venza panoramic roof model. The CAE model was
created as an exact replica of the test setup in order to achieve the test correlation. Figure
1.6.2 and Image D-ll show the static bending CAE setup equivalent to the test vehicle.
                                                FORCE • 2 22e-03
 image: 








                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                            Page 78
                        Image D-ll: Bending Stiffness CAE Setup
D.8.3.2 Static Torsional Stiffness Test Setup

Similarly,  the  vehicle   was   instrumented  for  measurement   of torsion  stiffness
characteristics as shown in Image D-12. The necessary deformations were measured at
different test locations by applying 1,200N and -1,200N on the left and right shock towers
respectively.
         Torsional Stiffness Testing Setup
             BIP instrumented with accelerometers
                       Image D-12: Torsion Stiffness Testing Setup

The CAE model was created by incorporating the same boundary and loading conditions
as seen in the physical test setup. Image D-13 shows the equivalent CAE model for the
torsion stiffness test setup.
 image: 








                                                      Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                   March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 79
                                  FORCE • 1 20e-03
                       Image D-13: Torsion Stiffness CAE Setup
D.8.3.3 Dynamic Modal Test Setup

In the  dynamic modal  analysis, MSC Nastran SOL 103 was used with no  boundary
conditions.  It is a free-free (no boundary condition, no  initial condition) frequency
analysis with a given frequency range of 0-100Hz. This was defined with the help of the
NASTRAN  PARAM control card in which  the  input and  output requirements are
embedded with the EIGRL card.

Once the test data was  recorded for the dynamic modal setup, the FEA model was run
using NASTRAN. The normal modes were noted in the CAE model and then compared
with the test data in order to correlate the FEA model to the physical model.
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                        Page 80

                        Image D-14: Dynamic Modal Test Setup

     D.8.4   Step II: Construction and Correlation of NVH Model

After the teardown vehicle was scanned and converted to a CAE model, it was converted
into  a panoramic roof model. This model was then compared with the test model, as
shown in Image D-15. The various factors that were considered for the correlation were
weight of the test vehicle versus  the CAE model, modal analysis,  torsion  stiffness, and
bending stiffness.

The  NVH models shown in Figures  D-26, D-29, and D-31 were  used to correlate the
CAE model. The results are shown in Table D-3.
                     Image D-15: CAE Model for NVH Correlation

     D.8.5   NVH Correlation Summary

The MSC Nastran solver (SOL 101 &  103[4]) was used to analyze the NVH load cases.
The results of the NVH simulations were studied with respect to the test results. The
correlation of the CAE test results of the NVH load cases are shown in Table D-2.
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 81

Study Description

ActualTest Results
(Panoramic Roof)
EDAG CAE Model
(Panoramic Roof)
Correlation Model
Correlation of
CAE Model to
Actual Test Results

Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hz)

23.0

23.0


100.0%


Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)

35.3

34.2


96.6%


Rear-End
Match-Boxing
Mode
(Hz)

36.4

35.6


97.8%

Overall
Vertical
Bending,
Rear-End
Breathing
Mode
(Hz)
44.5

41.9


94.2%


Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.mJrad)

686.7

703.0


Bending
Stiffness
(KN/m)

17991.0

17725.7


97.6%

98.5%


Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)

400.5

392.5


98.0%


Comments

Physical Test of 2009 Venza
CAE Model of 2009 Venza
Same Configuration as
Test Vehicle

Model Correlation

             Table D-2: FEA Model Test Correlation Comparison with Test Data

The data in Table D-2 shows the initial FE model correlated well with the test vehicle
within the 5% target.  This model thus qualified to create further EDAG CAE baseline
models for the remaining NVH and crash load cases.

       D.8.6  Step III:  EDAG CAE Baseline Model

The EDAG CAE baseline model for NVH cases was  created from the correlated FE
model. The correlated  FE model was converted to a 2010 Toyota Venza with full roof and
simulated for NVH load cases. The results were compared with the test data  and the
correlated model as shown in Table D-3. Note the results of the global torsion mode and
torsional stiffness of the baseline model were significantly higher due to the full-roof
structure.  The other global bending mode and static bending  stiffness results  showed
similar performance with the baseline and correlated models.
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 82

Study Description

Actual Test Results
(Panoramic Roof)
Phase 1
EDAG CAE Model
(Panoramic Roof)
Phase II
EDAG CAE Model
(Full Root)
Baseline Model
Phase III

Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hz)


23.0


23.0

54.6


Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)


35.3


34.2

34.3


Rear-End
Match-Boxing
Mode
(Hz)


36.4


35.6

32.4

Overall
Vertical
Bending,
Rear-End
Breathing
Mode
(Hz)

44.5


41.9

41.0


Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.m(rad)


686.7


703.0

1334.0


Bending
Stiffness
(KNi'm)


17991.0


17725.7

18204.5


Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)


400.5


Comments


Physical Test of 2009 Venza

CAE Model of 2009 Venza
392.5

407.7

Same Configuration as
Test Vehicle
CAE Model Of 2010
Full Roof Venza
Baseline Vehicle

                Table D-3: NVH Results Summary for CAE Baseline Model

The baseline model for the NVH cases was correlated and referenced in the project for
further NVH load cases. The same NVH baseline model was used to create the crash
baseline models.  The model setup and load case creations for crash  simulations are
explained later in this study.
D.9   Lotus Results Validation

The project also included validation of the weight reduction of the Toyota Venza with
respect to the Lotus Engineering weight reduction report.[5] Lotus Engineering provided a
theoretical  study of the weight reduction of the Toyota Venza under two different study
levels: a low-development study and a high-development study.

The low-development study primarily  included the use of various high-strength steel
materials with more focus on substituting existing parts, thus yielding weight savings and
resulting cost increases.  The  high-development study, however, included some design
changes,  futuristic  manufacturing  techniques,  newly  combined  assemblies,   and
production volumes. It primarily featured changes in the body structure of the vehicle.

The scope  of this project was to validate the findings  of the low-development  study,
which states that without any major performance  degradation,  the BIW mass savings
would be about 6.55%. Images D-16 and  D-17 show the material map and the thickness
map of Lotus Engineering's optimized low-development study, respectively.
 image: 








                                 Material Map by Lotus
                                                           Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                         March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 83
                          BH210
                 MLD140
                                                              DP300
                                                                   DP700
                             DP350
                                                DP500
             Image D-16: Material Map Based on Lotus Engineering information
        0.5 mm to 0.8 mm
                                                                     Above 2.00mm


                                                         1.60mm to 2.00 mm
             Image D-17: Thickness Map Based on Lotus Engineering information

EDAG validated  Lotus Engineering's  low-development study  for  NVH performance
using the materials and gauges shown in Images D-16 and D-17. This information was
 image: 








                                                        Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                     March 30, 2012
                                                                          Page 84

incorporated into the EDAG baseline NVH model. Static stiffness and modal load cases
were simulated and compared with EDAG baseline NVH results.

The results of the validation in comparison to the EDAG  baseline model are shown in
Table  D-4. The modal analysis  results  and corresponding weight reduction were
comparable, but the bending and torsional stiffness values did not provide acceptable
performance. The torsional stiffness is 20.4% less,  and the bending stiffness is 20.0% less
than the 5% target performance established by EDAG.

Study Description

EDAG CAE Model
(Full Roof)
Baseline Model
EDAG CAE Baseline
Model with
Lotus Recommended
Substitutions
Percentage
Difference

Overall
Torsion
Mode
(Hi)

54.6

53.4

•2.2

Overall
Lateral
Bending
Mode
(HZ)

34.3

33,7

-1.8

Rear-End
Match-Boxing
Mode
(Hi)

32.4

31.8

-1.9
Overall
Vertical
Bending.
Rear-End
Breathing
Mode
(Hz|
41.0

39.7


Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.m/rad)

1334.0

1062.2

-3.2

Bending
Stiffness
(KHrm)

1B204.5

14560.0


Weight
Test
Condition
(Kg)

407.7

384.6

-5.7

Weight
BIW
(Kg)

378.0

352.1

-6.5

Comments

CAE Model of 2010
Full RoofVenza
Baseline Vehicle
EDAG CAE Model
with Lotus
Recommendations

Torsion and Bending
Outside of the
Acceptable Limits
                 Table D-4: NVH Results Summary for Lotus CAE Model

Further crash validations of Lotus Engineering's study were not conducted, since it did
not meet the NVH targeted performance.
 image: 








D.10  Baseline Crash Model
              Phase 1: Data Generated from Toyota Venza
                 Vehicle Tear Down
                            Body
                           Structure
                           Other parts
                           (Powertrwn.
                   Huitd Initial
                   FEA Model
                   M«Wn«l
                   Coupon
                   SctnDit*
                   EDAGCAE
                                    •3- at rt-.
                 Systems and
                 Parts Weight
         Output      and
                 Dimensions
         Systems ind
          PertsScin
          Geometry
         Weld points
          locMons
          initiiJ SIP
          FEA Model
          v«!.d«tcd
         MMerulSpec
                  In-Prime (BIP)
                   Teitinf
          NVHand
          Stiffness
           results
          correlation
                     EOAG Expertise in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
          Tools
          Used
            "E-
EDAG Tear
 Down/
Benchmark
Guidelines
 Garage
 Services
White light
  Scan
  Ansa
 Advanced
 EDAGFEA
 Software lor
Model Quality
  Check
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
                                                             Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                            March 30, 2012
                                                                                 Page 85
                                    Phase 2: Data Generated from the FEA
                                    Models
                   EDAGCAE
                   Guidelines
         Initial Crash
         Vehicle FEA
          Model
  Ansa
 Advanced
 EOAG FEA
 Software for
Model Quality
  Check
                                      ClaihFEA
                                       Model
                                     Com pans loo
                   Physical
                   Vehicle
                    Crash
                                       Define
                                     • Comparison
                                       Factors
          Crash results
          Comparison
           Valves
          Cr«h Pulse
                                                       EDAG Engineer! g(CAE andVehideIntegration)Expertise
 LS-Dyna
A3 Animator
 EDAG
 Results
Database
ana Tools
                             Figure D-18: Baseline Crash Model

As per the scope  of the project,  CAE crash  performance analyses were carried out to
verify compliance with the National Highway Traffic  Safety Association (NHTSA)
regulatory performance targets. For this project, the following Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards (FMVSS) and European regulatory test requirements were incorporated
into the individual CAE models:

    1)  FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash with rigid wall barrier, same as US New
       Car Assessment Program (US NCAP)

    2)  European New  Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP)—35 MPH frontal crash
       with Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB),  same as  the  Insurance  Institute for
       Highway Safety (IIHS) frontal crash

    3)  FMVSS 214—38.5 MPH side impact with  moving deformable barrier (MDB)

    4)  FMVSS 301—50 MPH rear impact with moving  deformable barrier (MDB)

    5)  FMVSS 216a—Roof  crush  resistance (utilizing the  higher standard  IIHS roof
       crush resistance criteria)


The structural level performance indices (such as pulse and intrusion) were compared to
each of the regulatory targets. In compliance with EDAG common practice, a correlation
requirement of >95% (or <5% error) was set for the performance indices.
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 86

A baseline crash model was developed and correlated for the frontal and side-impact load
cases of testing specifications in FMVSS requirements 1 and 3. The remaining load cases
were then carried out using the correlated crash model.
     D.10.1  Model Building
D.10.1.1
Major System for Full Vehicle Model
In order to build  the  full-vehicle crash model, the validated NVH BIP  model (from
section  1.6.5) was utilized. The crash model included all closure parts (such as hood,
doors, and tailgate). Front and rear bumper system structural parts were also included to
represent realistic high-speed front and rear-crash scenarios. All parts critical  to a high-
speed frontal impact scenario were included:  powertrain assembly, major engine and
transmission parts, radiator assembly, and exhaust subsystem. The fuel tank system parts
(critical for rear and side-impact scenario) were also included in the full  vehicle crash
model. The rear seat system was represented as a lumped mass critical for front and rear-
impact  scenarios.  A carryover FEA seat system  was integrated to take  into account
resistance of seat structure  deformation in side-impact scenario. The full-vehicle crash
model consisted of a total of 1,300,000 elements.  The CAE  weight of the model was
1,843.2  kg, in comparison with test vehicle weight of 1,839.9 kg. Figure D-35  shows the
different major systems of the full-vehicle crash model.
           Body in White
           (BIW)
                                                                  Closures
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 87

                    Figure D-35: Major Systems of Full-Vehicle Model

The gauge map and material map of BIP parts (the same as the validated BIP model) are
shown in Section 1.5. The gauge and material data for the remaining closure parts were
also  incorporated accordingly.  Images D-18  and  D-19  represent the gauge map and
material grade map of the closure parts.
            0.5mm to 0.8mm
                  Image D-18: Gauge Map of Closures Models of Baseline
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 88
   Mild-Steel Group
                                                              HSLA 350
D.10.1.2
                 Image D-19: Material Map of Closures Models of Baseline
Mass Validation
EDAG  standard  CAE  Modeling guidelines[3]  were  followed throughout the  model
building process to be consistent with mass and center of gravity (CG) calibrations. The
total vehicle mass was correlated to NHTSA Test No.  C95111. Vehicle mass difference
was  calibrated within 0.5% of test weight. The vehicle CG was calibrated to be  within
0.5% of the test measurement.
     D.10.2  Powertrain Mass & Inertia Calibration Test

In order to capture correct moment of inertia (MOI)  and mass  information  for the
powertrain assembly, an independent swing test was executed. In a full vehicle crash
analysis, the characteristics of the powertrain significantly influence the body pulse and
engine compartment structural deformation. An accurate representation of the mass and
MOI  of the  engine and  powertrain system is therefore  a crucial  part of the crash
simulation.
D.10.2.1      Measuring Powertrain CG & Moment of Inertia

The powertrain and/or engine characteristics, namely, MOI and center of gravity (CG),
were measured by conducting an oscillation test on the disassembled powertrain system
 image: 








                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                       March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 89


using trifilar suspension apparatus.[1!i] Due to the complexity of the measuring process,
the following assumptions were made while calculating the MOI and CG:

   •  Engine mass is evenly distributed across the engine

   •  The oscillation is assumed to be undamped

   •  Test frame inertia was subtracted from powertrain inertia

MOI  and CG were recorded  as per trifilar suspension testing procedures.[18] The  CG
location is shown in Figure 1.8.4; the  powertrain mass and inertia matrix are shown in
Image D-20.
                                          Center of Gravity Refrence :
                                              Center of Crank Bolt
                 Image D-20: Powertrain and/or Engine Center of Gravity
 image: 








 Powertrain Mass [kg]
 Center of Gravity (from reference) [m]
 Inertia Tensor (about CG) [kg-m2]
 Principal MOI [kg-m2]
 Principal Directions
 (unit vectors relative to original coordinate axis
  - displayed in columns of orientation matrix)
                                                         Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                      March 30, 2012
                                                                           Page 90
235.0
0.427   0.002  0.083

10.466  1.282  -4.016
1.282  21.807  -0.287
-4.016 -0.287  20.284

8.9366    0      0
  0    22.515    0
  0       0    21.106

-0.940 -0.196  -0.280
0.086   0.657  -0.749
-0.331   0.729  0.600
                Figure D-19: Powertrain Mass & Moment of Inertia Results
Baseline Crash Model Set-up

The crash load cases considered in this study are
      •   FMVSS 208—35 MPH flat frontal crash (US NCAP)

      •   Euro NCAP—35 MPH ODB frontal crash (Euro NCAP/IIHS)

      •   FMVSS 214—38.5MPHMDB side impact

      •   FMVSS 301—50 MPH MDB rear impact

      •   FMVSS 261 a—Roof crush (utilizing IIHS roof-crush criteria)

Figure D-19 shows all five different load case configurations with appropriate barriers
placed against the full vehicle baseline model.
 image: 








                                                          Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                        March 30, 2012
                                                                             Page 91
           Image D-21: Configuration of All Load Case Set-Ups for Baseline Model

The necessary physical vehicle data obtained during the vehicle teardown phase (e.g.,
bushings) were included in the crash model. A brief summary of model content statistics
is provided in Table D-5.
Model Detail
Total number of elements
Total number of nodes
Total number of shell elements
Total number of solid elements
Total number of beam & discrete elements
Total number of part IDs
Count
1,372,930
1,374,947
1,275,631
97,099
91
1157
                    Table D-5: Contents of EDAG CAE Baseline Model
The crash model correlations with the test results are explained in detail in the following
sections.
 image: 








                                                       Analysis Report BAV 10-449-001
                                                                    March 30, 2012
                                                                         Page 92
     D.10.3 Baseline Crash Model Evaluation
For reasonable representation of a realistic vehicle crash test, the FE baseline crash model
needed to be correlated against physical test data. The FE crash model was