Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis—
Light-Duty Pickup Truck Model Years
2020-2025
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis—
Light-Duty Pickup Truck Model Years
2020-2025
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared for EPA by
FEV North America, Inc.
EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-014 WA3-03
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.
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-15-006
June 2015
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 3
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 35
1. Introduction and Program Objectives 44
1.1 Analysis Background 44
1.2 Analysis Objectives 45
1.3 Consideration of Commercial/Business Factors 48
1.4 Consideration of Component Mass Reduction On Overall Vehicle
Performance 49
1.5 The Project Team 50
1.6 Structure of This Report 52
2. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Methodology, Tools and
Boundary Conditions 54
2.1 Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Methodology Overview 54
2.2 Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Mass Reduction Evaluation Group -
Methodology Overview 56
2.2.1 Step 1: Baseline Vehicle Fingerprinting 57
2.2.2 Step 2: Mass Reduction Idea Generation 58
2.2.3 Step 3: Mass Reduction and Cost Optimization Process 68
2.2.4 Step 4: Selection of Vehicle Mass reduction Solution 71
2.2.5 Step 5: Detailed Mass reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis 72
2.3 Body and Frame Mass reduction Evaluation Group - Methodology
Overview 73
2.3.1 Analysis Overview 74
2.3.2 Mass Reduction 75
2.4 Cost Modeling Details 149
2.4.1 Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation - Cost Modeling Details 151
2.4.2 Body and Frame Evaluation Group - Cost Modeling Details 190
3. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results Overview 200
3.1 Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results Overview - Vehicle Level 200
3.1.1 Mass Reduction, Cost and Volume Study Assumptions 200
3.1.2 Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Summary 201
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 4
3.2 Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results Overview - Vehicle
Systems 214
3.2.1 Engine System Overview 214
3.2.2 Transmission System Overview 217
3.2.3 Body System Group-B-(Interior) Overview 219
3.2.4 Body System-C-(Exterior) Overview 221
3.2.5 Body System Group -D- Overview 221
3.2.6 Suspension System Overview 222
3.2.7 Driveline System Overview 225
3.2.8 Brake System Overview 228
3.2.9 Exhaust System Overview 231
3.2.10 Fuel System Overview 233
3.2.11 Steering System Overview 235
3.2.12 Climate Control System Overview 237
3.2.13 Info, Gage, and Warning Device Systems Overview 238
3.2.14 Electrical Power Supply System Overview 239
3.2.15 Lighting System Overview 241
3.2.16 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System Overview 241
3.2.17 Body and Frame Systems Overview 243
4. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Vehicle Systems White
Papers 247
4.1 Engine System 247
4.1.1 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem 252
4.1.2 Crank Drive Subsystem 259
4.1.3 Cylinder Block Subsystem 268
4.1.4 Cylinder Head Subsystem 277
4.1.5 Valvetrain Subsystem 281
4.1.6 Timing Drive Subsystem 293
4.1.7 Accessory Drive Subsystem 299
4.1.8 Air Intake Subsystem 305
4.1.9 Fuel Induction Subsystem 312
4.1.10 Exhaust Subsystem 314
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 5
4.1.11 Lubrication Subsystem 321
4.1.12 Cooling Subsystem 327
4.1.13 Induction Air Charging Subsystem 335
4.1.14 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem 335
4.1.15 Breather Subsystem 335
4.1.16 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, and Electrical Subsystem 335
4.1.17 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.) 339
4.1.18 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 344
4.1.19 Engine System Material Analysis 346
4.2 Transmission 348
4.2.1 External Components Subsystem 351
4.2.2 Case Subsystem 351
4.2.3 Gear Train Subsystem 355
4.2.4 Internal Clutch Subsystem 361
4.2.5 Launch Clutch Subsystem 367
4.2.6 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem 373
4.2.7 Mechanical Controls Subsystem 377
4.2.8 Electrical Controls Subsystem 381
4.2.9 Parking Mechanism Subsystem 381
4.2.10 Miscellaneous Subsystem 385
4.2.11 Electric Motor and Controls Subsystem 385
4.2.12 Transfer Case Subsystem 386
4.2.13 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem 391
4.2.14 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 392
4.2.15 Transmission System Material Analysis 393
4.3 Body System Group -B- (Interior) 395
4.3.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 396
4.3.2 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem 407
4.3.3 Sealing Subsystem 408
4.3.4 Seating Subsystem 413
4.3.5 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem 436
4.3.6 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem 444
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 6
4.3.7 Secondary Mass Reduction/Compounding 455
4.3.8 Body Group-B-Material Analysis 456
4.4 Body System -C- (Exterior) 457
4.4.1 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem 458
4.4.2 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem 463
4.4.3 Front End Module Subsystem 466
4.4.4 Rear End Module Subsystem 469
4.4.5 Secondary Mass Reduction and Compounding 472
4.4.6 Body Group -C- Material Analysis 473
4.5 Body System Group -D- 474
4.5.1 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem 475
4.5.2 Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem. 488
4.5.3 Wipers and Washers Subsystem 489
4.5.4 Secondary Mass Reduction and Compounding 493
4.5.5 Body Group -D- Material Analysis 494
4.6 Suspension System 495
4.6.1 Front Suspension Subsystem 496
4.6.2 Rear Suspension Subsystem 526
4.6.3 Shock Absorber Subsystem 543
4.6.4 Wheels and Tires Subsystem 553
4.6.5 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 566
4.6.6 Suspension System Material Analysis 569
4.7 Driveline System 570
4.7.1 Driveshaft Subsystem 572
4.7.2 Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 575
4.7.3 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem 579
4.7.4 Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem 583
4.7.5 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 586
4.7.6 Driveline System Material Analysis 587
4.8 Brake System 588
4.8.1 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem 590
4.8.2 Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem 611
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 7
4.8.3 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem 629
4.8.4 Brake Actuation Subsystem 640
4.8.5 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic) 653
4.8.6 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 669
4.8.7 Brake System Material Analysis 671
4.9 Exhaust System 672
4.9.1 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem 674
4.9.2 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 687
4.9.3 Exhaust System Material Analysis 687
4.10 Fuel System 688
4.10.1 Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem 691
4.10.2 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem 699
4.10.3 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 704
4.10.4 Fuel System Material Analysis 706
4.11 Steering System 707
4.11.1 Steering Gear Subsystem 709
4.11.2 Power Steering Subsystem 713
4.11.3 Steering Equipment Subsystem 715
4.11.4 Steering Column Subsystem 718
4.11.5 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 723
4.11.6 Steering System Material Analysis 723
4.12 Climate Control System 724
4.12.2 Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem 727
4.12.3 Summary of Mass reduction Concepts Considered 731
4.12.4 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 732
4.12.5 Climate Control System Material Analysis 733
4.13 Info, Gage, and Warning Device Systems 734
4.13.1 Instrument Cluster Subsystem 736
4.13.2 Info, Gage, and Warning System Mass Reduction / Compounding 740
4.13.3 Info, Gage, and Warning Device System Material Analysis 741
4.14 Electrical Power Supply System 742
4.14.1 Service Battery Subsystem 744
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
PageS
4.14.2 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 756
4.14.3 Electrical Power Supply System Material Analysis 756
4.15 In-Vehicle Entertainment System 757
4.15.1 In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem 759
4.16 Lighting System 760
4.16.1 Front Lighting Subsystem 761
4.16.2 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 766
4.16.3 Lighting System Material Analysis 766
4.17 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System 767
4.17.1 Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem 769
4.17.2 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding 785
4.17.3 Electrical System Material Analysis 786
4.18 Body and Frame Systems 787
4.18.1 Phase 1: Silverado 2011 Baseline Generation Results 788
4.18.2 Phase 2: Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash 800
4.18.3 Baseline Crash Results 823
4.18.4 Modularization and System Analysis Results 847
4.18.5 Full Vehicle Optimization 862
4.18.6 Secondary Mass Reduction/Compounding 949
5. Supplementary Analyses 954
5.1 Additional Weight Savings Ideas Not Implemented - Overview 954
5.2 Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group Ideas Not Implemented955
5.3 Frame and Body Evaluation Group Ideas Not Implemented 956
5.3.1 HSS/AHSS Body Structures (Cabin and Cargo/Box Assemblies) 957
5.3.2 Aluminum Intensive Frame 958
5.4 Alternative Materials 959
6. Conclusion, Recommendations and Acknowledgements 960
6.1 Conclusion and Recommendations 960
6.2 Acknowledgments 967
7. Appendix 968
7.1 System Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs) 968
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 9
7.1.1 Vehicle System 968
7.1.2 Engine System 971
7.1.3 Transmission System 973
7.1.4 Body System-A- 975
7.1.5 Body System-B- 976
7.1.6 Body System-C- 977
7.1.7 Body System-D- 978
7.1.8 Suspension System 979
7.1.9 Driveline System 980
7.1.10 Brakes System 981
7.1.11 Frame and Mounting System 982
7.1.12 Exhaust System 983
7.1.13 Fuel System 984
7.1.14 Steering System 985
7.1.15 Climate Control System 986
7.1.16 Info, Gage, and Warning System 987
7.1.17 Electrical Power Supply System 988
7.1.18 Lighting System 989
7.1.19 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System 990
7.2 Body and Frame Supporting Data 991
7.2.1 Vehicle Scan Data - Disassembled Parts 991
7.2.2 Scan Data from White Light Scanning 995
7.2.3 Material Models (LS-DYNA) 996
7.2.4 Load Path Analysis 1000
7.2.5 Subsystem Weight Reductions 1004
7.2.6 LS-DYNA Model Development 1006
7.2.7 FEV Mass Optimized Systems 1007
7.2.8 Key Updates from the 2007-2011 CAE Model Implemented 1007
7.2.9 Cost Assumptions 1008
8. Glossary of Terms and Initials 1013
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 10
List of Figures
FIGURE 1.5-1: PERCENT MASS CONTRIBUTION OF LIGHT-DUTY PICKUP TRUCK, 2011 SILVERADO 50
FIGURE 2.1-1: KEY STEPS IN THE MASS REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS PROJECT 54
FIGURE 2.1-2 PRODUCTION STOCK 1500 SILVERADO NET COMPONENT MASS BY EVALUATION GROUP 54
FIGURE 2.1-3: KEY SYSTEMS IN POWERTRAIN, CHASSIS AND TRIM EVALUATION GROUP 55
FIGURE 2.1-4: KEY SYSTEMS AND SUBSYSTEMS INCLUDED IN BODY AND FRAME EVALUATION GROUP 55
FIGURE 2.2-1: KEY STEPS IN BASELINE VEHICLE FINGERPRINTING 57
FIGURE 2.2-2: KEY STEPS IN MASS REDUCTION IDEA GENERATION 58
FIGURE 2.2-3: SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED TO DEVELOP MASS REDUCTION COMPONENTS 61
FIGURE 2.2-4: PRIMARY IDEA DOWN-SELECT PROCESS EXCERPT FROM FEV BRAINSTORMING TEMPLATE 62
FIGURE 2.2-5 :FEV MASS AND COST CALCULATOR EXAMPLE 65
FIGURE 2.2-6: ESTIMATED WEIGHT AND COST IMPACT (PART 4) AND FINAL IDEAL DOWN-SELECTION (PART 5)
EXCERPT FROM FEV BRAINSTORMING TEMPLATE 67
FIGURE 2.2-7: MASS REDUCTION IDEA GROUPING/BINNING BASED ON MASS REDUCTION VALUE 68
FIGURE 2.2-8: KEY STEPS IN MASS REDUCTION AND COST OPTIMIZATION PROCESS 68
FIGURE 2.2-9: COMPONENT/ASSEMBLY MASS REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROCESS 69
FIGURE 2.2-10: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION OPTIMIZATION PROCESS 70
FIGURE 2.3-1: CAE EVALUATION PROCESS AND COMPONENTS 74
FIGURE 2.3-2: PROJECT TASKS PHASE 1 AND 2 76
FIGURE 2.3-3: PROJECT TASKS PHASE 3 AND 4 76
FIGURE 2.3-4: SILVERADO 2011 BASELINE GENERATION 77
FIGURE 2.3-5: VEHICLE TEARDOWN PROCESS 78
FIGURE 2.3-6: BASELINE VEHICLE COMPONENT DISTRIBUTION 81
FIGURE 2.3-7: WHITE LIGHT SCANNING PART IDENTIFICATION METHODOLOGY 82
FIGURE 2.3-8: MESH GENERATION FROM STL RAWDATA 83
FIGURE 2.3-9:FE MODEL OF 2011 SILVERADO FRAME ASSEMBLY 84
FIGURE 2.3-10: FE MODEL OF 2011 SILVERADO 85
FIGURE 2.3-11:2011 SILVERADO BASELINE SUBSYSTEMS 86
FIGURE 2.3-12: ESTABLISH BASELINE CRITERIA 87
FIGURE 2.3-13 :FEA MODEL VALIDATION: BASELINE NVH AND CRASH MODELS 90
FIGURE 2.3-14: PROCESS FLOW TO BUILD BASELINE MODEL 92
FIGURE 2.3-15: FRAME NVH MODEL 93
FIGURE 2.3-16: LOADS AND CONSTRAINTS ON FRAME NVH MODEL FOR BENDING STIFFNESS 94
FIGURE 2.3-17: LOAD AND CONSTRAINTS ON FRAME NVH MODEL FOR TORSIONAL STIFFNESS 95
FIGURE 2.3-18: BENDING STIFFNESS CAE SETUP 96
FIGURE 2.3-19: TORSION STIFFNESS CAE SETUP 97
FIGURE 2.3-20: CABIN NVH MODEL 99
FIGURE 2.3-21: LOADS AND CONSTRAINTS ON CABIN NVH MODEL FOR BENDING STIFFNESS 100
FIGURE 2.3-22: LOAD AND CONSTRAINTS ON CABIN NVH MODEL FOR TORSIONAL STIFFNESS 101
FIGURE 2.3-23: BENDING STIFFNESS CAE SETUP 102
FIGURE 2.3-24: TORSION STIFFNESS CAE SETUP 103
FIGURE 2.3-25: CARGO Box NVH MODEL 105
FIGURE 2.3-26: LOADS AND CONSTRAINTS ON CARGO Box NVH MODEL FOR BENDING STIFFNESS 106
FIGURE 2.3-27: LOAD AND CONSTRAINTS ON CARGO Box NVH MODEL FOR TORSIONAL STIFFNESS 107
FIGURE 2.3-28: BODY ON FRAME NVH MODEL 108
FIGURE 2.3-29: BUSHINGS IN CAE MODEL 109
FIGURE 2.3-30: BUSHING #1-PUSH IN/OUT TEST RESULTS 110
FIGURE 2.3-31: BUSHING #1-TORSION TEST RESULTS Ill
FIGURE 2.3-32: LOADS AND CONSTRAINTS ON EOF NVH MODEL FOR BENDING STIFFNESS 112
FIGURE 2.3-33: LOAD AND CONSTRAINTS ON EOF NVH MODEL FOR TORSIONAL STIFFNESS 113
FIGURE 2.3-34: BENDING STIFFNESS CAE SETUP 114
FIGURE 2.3-35: TORSION STIFFNESS CAE SETUP 115
FIGURE 2.3-3 6: CRASH FE A MODEL BUILD 116
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 11
FIGURE 2.3-37: BASELINE CRASH MODEL EVALUATION 120
FIGURE 2.3-38: CREATE MODULAR FEA MODELS 121
FIGURE 2.3-39: SUBSYSTEMS GROUPING 122
FIGURE 2.3-40: SUBSYSTEMS TO FULL VEHICLE INTEGRATED OPTIMIZATION 123
FIGURE 2.3-41: SYSTEMS ANALYSIS 125
FIGURE 2.3-42: LIGHTWEIGHT DESIGN OPTIMIZATION PROCESS 126
FIGURE 2.3-43: GENERATE SUBSYSTEMS ALTERNATIVES 129
FIGURE 2.3-44: ALUMINUM USED IN THE FRAME 132
FIGURE 2.3-45: ALUMINUM USED IN THE CABIN 133
FIGURE 2.3-46: ALUMINUM USED IN THE CARGO Box 133
FIGURE 2.3-47 :SPR SEQUENCE 134
FIGURE 2.3-48: FRAME RAIL PARTS REPLACED WITH TRB PARTS 135
FIGURE 2.3-49: FRAME RAIL TRB PART GAUGE MAP 136
FIGURE 2.3-50: FULL VEHICLE OPTIMIZATION 137
FIGURE 2.3-51: FULL VEHICLE OPTIMIZATION MODEL BUILT IN HEEDS 138
FIGURE 2.3-52: RESPONSE SURF ACE OUTPUT FROM OPTIMIZER 144
FIGURE 2.3-53: DESIGN SELECTION 146
FIGURE 2.3-54: STRATEGY ANALYSIS 148
FIGURE 2.3-55: DESIGN SELECTION 149
FIGURE 2.4-1: NET INCREMENTAL DIRECT MANUFACTURING COST ELEMENTS 150
FIGURE 2.4-2: MASS REDUCTIONS COSTS INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS 151
FIGURE 2.4-3: COST METHODOLOGY STEPS FORPOWERTRAIN, CHASSIS AND TRIM EVALUATION GROUP 153
FIGURE 2.4-4: PRIMARY PROCESS STEPS IN DETAILED COST MODELING 175
FIGURE 2.4-5: EXAMPLE OF DESIGN PROFIT® MAPPING/COSTING SOFTWARE 177
FIGURE2.4-6: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 1OF2) 179
FIGURE 2.4-7: SAMPLE MAQS COSTING WORKSHEET (PART 2 OF 2) 180
FIGURE 2.4-8: EXCERPT ILLUSTRATING AUTOMATED LINK BETWEEN OEM/T1 CLASSIFICATION INPUT IN MAQS
WORKSHEET AND THE CORRESPONDING MARK-UP PERCENTAGES UPLOADED FROM THE MARK-UP DATABASE
181
FIGURE 2.4-9: SAMPLE EXCERPT FROM MASS-REDUCED FRONT STABILIZER BAR MAQS WORKSHEET ILLUSTRATING
TOOLING COLUMNS AND CATEGORIES 187
FIGURE 2.4-10: LIGHT-DUTY PICKUP TRUCK COST CURVES WITH AND WITHOUT MASS COMPOUNDING 189
FIGURE 2.4-11: FUNDAMENTAL STEPS IN PART MANUFACTURING COST ASSESSMENT 195
FIGURE 2.4-12: FUNDAMENTAL STEPS IN ASSEMBLY COST ASSESSMENT 196
FIGURE 3.1-1 MASS OF 2011 CHEVROLET SILVERADO (PRODUCTION STOCK) VEHICLE SYSTEMS 201
FIGURE 3.1-2: CALCULATED SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION RELATIVE TO BASELINE VEHICLE STARTING MASS 202
FIGURE 3.1-3: GENERAL MATERIAL MAKE-UP OF SILVERADO PRODUCTION VEHICLE AND MASS-REDUCED VEHICLE
210
FIGURE 3.1-4: LIGHT-DUTY PICKUP TRUCK COST CURVES WITH AND WITHOUT MASS COMPOUNDING 212
FIGURE 3.1-5: POWERTRAIN, CHASSIS AND TRIM EVALUATION GROUP COST CURVE INCLUSIVE OF SECONDARY
MASS-SAVINGS 213
FIGURE 3.1-6: SELECTIVE BODY SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS/ASSEMBLIES COST CURVE INCLUSIVE OF SECONDARY
MASS SAVINGS 213
FIGURE 4.1-1: BASELINE MATERIAL BREAKDOWN FOR ENGINE SYSTEM 250
FIGURE 4.1-2: CALCULATED ENGINE SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 347
FIGURE 4.2-1: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM BASE MATERIAL CONTENT 350
FIGURE 4.2-2: CALCULATED TRANSMISSION SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 394
FIGURE 4.3-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE BODY SYSTEM-B-BASE BOM 396
FIGURE 4.3-2: JYCOTPV FOOTPRINT vs. EDPM 412
FIGURE 4.3-3: COLD CHAMBER MAGNESIUM DIE CASTING MACHINE 428
FIGURE 4.3-4: ILLUSTRATION OF MUBEA'S TAILOR ROLLED BLANK PROCESS 439
FIGURE 4.3-5: CALCULATED BODY SYSTEM -B- BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 456
FIGURE 4.4-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE BODY SYSTEM-C-BASE BOM 458
FIGURE 4.4-2: CALCULATED BODY SYSTEM -C- BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 473
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 12
FIGURE 4.5-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE BODY SYSTEM GROUP-D-BASE BOM 475
FIGURE 4.5-2: FLOAT GLASS PROCESS 476
FIGURE 4.5-3: LAMINATED GLASS ASSEMBLY 479
FIGURE 4.5-4:EXATEC COATING SYSTEM 482
FIGURE 4.5-5: GORILLA GLASS AUTOMOTIVE GLAZING 483
FIGURE 4.5-6: OVERALL MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 484
FIGURE 4.5-7: GORILLA® GLASS BALL DROP TEST RESULTS 484
FIGURE 4.5-8: CALCULATED BODY SYSTEM-D-BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 494
FIGURE 4.6-1: BASELINE SUSPENSION SYSTEM MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION 495
FIGURE 4.6-2: SABIC LOWER CONTROL ARM 520
FIGURE 4.6-3: BASELINE AND TOTAL MASS REDUCED SUSPENSION SYSTEM MATERIAL CONTENT 569
FIGURE 4.7-1: BASELINE MATERIAL BREAKDOWN FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM 571
FIGURE 4.7-2: NEAR NET SHAPE VARI-LITE® TUBE-AXLE SHAFT 578
FIGURE 4.7-3: BASELINE AND TOTAL MASS REDUCED DRIVLINE SYSTEM MATERIAL CONTENT 588
FIGURE 4.8-1: BASELINE BRAKE SYSTEM MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION 589
FIGURE 4.8-2: FRONT ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM 591
FIGURE 4.8-3: PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM LAYOUT AND CONFIGURATION 631
FIGURE 4.8-4: BASELINE AND TOTAL MASS REDUCED BRAKE SYSTEM MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION 671
FIGURE 4.9-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BASE BOM 673
FIGURE 4.9-2: SGF® EXISTING EXHAUST SYSTEM RECOMMENDATION 683
FIGURE 4.9-3 :SGF HANGERS 684
FIGURE 4.9-4: CALCULATED EXHAUST SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 688
FIGURE 4.10-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE FUEL SYSTEM BASE BOM 690
FIGURE 4.10-2: CALCULATED FUEL SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 706
FIGURE 4.11-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE STEERING SYSTEM BASE BOM 709
FIGURE 4.11-2: CALCULATED STEERING SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 724
FIGURE 4.12-1: CALCULATED CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL 726
FIGURE 4.12-2: CALCULATED CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT
734
FIGURE 4.13-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE INFO, GAGE, AND WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM BASE BOM
736
FIGURE 4.13-2: CALCULATED INFO, GAGE, AND WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL
MATERIAL CONTENT 742
FIGURE 4.14-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY BASE BOM 744
FIGURE 4.14-2:2011 BATTERY SYSTEM 745
FIGURE 4.14-3:2011 COMMON LEAD ACID BATTERY BUILDUP 748
FIGURE 4.14-4:2011 LITHIUM-ION BATTERY BUILDUP 749
FIGURE 4.14-5: DEUTSCHE BANK BATTERY COST FORECAST, 2010 STUDY 750
FIGURE 4.14-6: POTENTIAL WEIGHT SAVINGS OF A SMART BATTERY LI-ION BATTERY 751
FIGURE 4.14-7: A123 SYSTEMS LI-ION NANOPHOSPHATE EXT BATTERY TECHNOLOGY RELEASE 753
FIGURE 4.14-8: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT BETWEEN BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT
757
FIGURE 4.15-1: CALCULATED IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL
CONTENT 759
FIGURE 4.16-1: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE BASE BOM 760
FIGURE 4.16-2: CALCULATED LIGHTING SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 767
FIGURE 4.17-1: CALCULATED BASE MATERIAL CONTENT FOR THE BASE BOM 769
FIGURE 4.17-2: MOST COMMON PLACES WHERE FLAT CABLE is USED 781
FIGURE 4.17-3: EXTRUDED FFC, WITH ROUND EDGES AND Low EDGE WIDTH 781
FIGURE 4.17-4: CALCULATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEM BASELINE MATERIAL
AND TOTAL MATERIAL CONTENT 787
FIGURE 4.18-1: PROJECT TASKS PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 788
FIGURE 4.18-2: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE FRAME (MM) 790
FIGURE 4.18-3: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE FRAME 790
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 13
FIGURE 4.18-4: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE CABIN (MM) 791
FIGURE 4.18-5: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE CABIN 791
FIGURE 4.18-6: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE CARGO Box 792
FIGURE 4.18-7: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE CARGO Box 792
FIGURE 4.18-8: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE FRONT BUMPER (MM) 793
FIGURE 4.18-9: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE FRONT BUMPER 793
FIGURE 4.18-10: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE REAR BUMPER (MM) 794
FIGURE 4.18-11: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE REAR BUMPER 794
FIGURE 4.18-12: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE CLOSURES (MM) 795
FIGURE 4.18-13: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE CLOSURES 795
FIGURE 4.18-14: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE IP CROSS MEMBER (MM) 796
FIGURE 4.18-15: MATERIAL MAP OF BASELINE IP CROSS MEMBER 796
FIGURE 4.18-16: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE RADIATOR SUPPORT (MM) 797
FIGURE 4.18-17: GAUGE MAP OF BASELINE RADIATOR SUPPORT (MM) 797
FIGURE 4.18-18: CRASH FEA MODEL COMPARISON 800
FIGURE 4.18-19: INTRUSION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 802
FIGURE 4.18-20: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON-RIGHT SIDE VIEW AT 150MS 803
FIGURE 4.18-21: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON-FRONT VIEW AT 150MS 803
FIGURE 4.18-22: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON-BOTTOM VIEW AT 150MS 803
FIGURE 4.18-23: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON-ISO VIEW AT 150MS 804
FIGURE 4.18-24: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON-RIGHT SIDE VIEW AT 150MS 804
FIGURE 4.18-25: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON-FRONT VIEW AT 150MS 804
FIGURE 4.18-26: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON-ISO VIEW AT 150MS 805
FIGURE 4.18-27: LOCATION OF VEHICLE PULSE MEASUREMENT 806
FIGURE 4.18-28: CAE BASELINE MODEL vs. TEST 807
FIGURE 4.18-29: CAE BASELINE MODEL vs. TEST 807
FIGURE 4.18-30: AVAILABLE ENGINE ROOM CRUSH SPACE BEFORE CRASH EVENT 808
FIGURE 4.18-31: CAE BASELINE MODEL vs. TEST 808
FIGURE 4.18-32: FMVSS214,38.5MDB SIDE IMPACT CAE MODEL SETUP 810
FIGURE 4.18-33: SIDE IMPACT COMPARISON-PRE-CRASH 811
FIGURE 4.18-34: SIDE IMPACT COMPARISON-POST-CRASH 811
FIGURE 4.18-35: DOOR DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON 812
FIGURE 4.18-36: REAR DOOR APERTURE DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON 812
FIGURE 4.18-37: B-PILLAR VELOCITY MEASUREMENT LOCATION 813
FIGURE 4.18-38: B-PILLAR VELOCITY 813
FIGURE 4.18-39: SIDE STRUCTURE EXTERIOR MEASURING LOCATION AND POINTS (SOURCE NHTSA) 814
FIGURE 4.18-40: SIDE STRUCTURE DEFORMATION SECTION CUT AT 1200L 815
FIGURE 4.18-41: FMVSS 214 5™ PERCENTILE POLE SIDE IMPACT CAE MODEL SETUP 816
FIGURE 4.18-42: FMVSS 214 STHPERCENTILE POLE SIDE IMPACT CAE MODEL SETUP 817
FIGURE 4.18-43: SIDE POLE IMPACT - PRE-CRASH 817
FIGURE 4.18-44: SIDE POLE IMPACT - POST-CRASH TOP VIEW AT 200MS 818
FIGURE 4.18-45: SIDE POLE IMPACT - POST-CRASH SIDE VIEW AT 200MS 818
FIGURE 4.18-46: DEFORMATION MODE BOTTOM VIEW AT 200MS 818
FIGURE 4.18-47: B-PILLAR VELOCITY MEASUREMENT LOCATION 819
FIGURE 4.18-48: B-PILLAR VELOCITY (M/S) 819
FIGURE 4.18-49: SIDE STRUCTURE EXTERIOR MEASURING LOCATIONS AND POINTS (SOURCE HTSA) 820
FIGURE 4.18-50: SIDE STRUCTURE DEFORMATION SECTION CUT AT OL 821
FIGURE 4.18-51: CRASH COMPARISON FACTORS 823
FIGURE 4.18-52: IIHSODB FRONTAL CRASH BASELINE MODEL SETUP 824
FIGURE 4.18-53: INTRUSION MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS 824
FIGURE 4.18-54: IIHS FRONTAL BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE-FRONT VIEW 825
FIGURE 4.18-55: IIHS FRONTAL BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE -Top VIEW 825
FIGURE 4.18-56: IIHS FRONTAL BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE-ISOMETRIC VIEW 826
FIGURE 4.18-57: IIHS FRONTAL BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE-LEFT SIDE VIEW 826
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 14
FIGURE 4.18-58: IIHS FRONTAL BASELINE DEFORMATION MODE-BOTTOM VIEW 827
FIGURE 4.18-59: IIHS FRONTAL BASELINE VEHICLE PULSE 827
FIGURE 4.18-60: IIHS FRONTAL BASELINE DYNAMIC CRUSH WITH BARRIER DEFORMATION 828
FIGURE 4.18-61: IIHS FRONTAL DASH PANEL INTRUSION PLOT 828
FIGURE 4.18-62: IIHS MDB SIDE IMPACT CAE MODEL SETUP 830
FIGURE 4.18-63: IIHS SIDE IMPACT-PRE-CRASH 831
FIGURE 4.18-64: IIHS SIDE IMPACT-POST-CRASH 831
FIGURE 4.18-65: IIHS SIDE IMPACT-POST-CRASH 831
FIGURE 4.18-66: B-PILLAR VELOCITY MEASUREMENT LOCATION 832
FIGURE 4.18-67: B-PILLAR VELOCITY 833
FIGURE 4.18-68: IIHS SIDE INTRUSION ZONES 834
FIGURE 4.18-69: SIDE STRUCTURE DEFORMATIONS 835
FIGURE 4.18-70: SIDE STRUCTURE EXTERIOR CRUSH 836
FIGURE 4.18-71: REAR IMPACT BASELINE MODEL SETUP 837
FIGURE 4.18-72: DEFORMATION MODE-LEFT SIDE VIEW 838
FIGURE 4.18-73 REFORMATION MODE OF REAR UNDERBODY STRUCTURE-LEFT SIDE VIEW AT 120MS 838
FIGURE 4.18-74: DEFORMATION MODE-BOTTOM VIEW AT120MS 839
FIGURE 4.18-75: DEFORMATION MODE OF REARUNDERBODY STRUCTURE - BOTTOM VIEW AT 120MS 839
FIGURE 4.18-76: FUEL TANK PLASTIC STRAIN PLOT OF BASELINE 840
FIGURE 4.18-77: REAR IMPACT, STRUCTURAL DEFORMATION MEASUREMENT AREA 841
FIGURE 4.18-78: ROOF CRUSH BASELINE MODEL SETUP 843
FIGURE 4.18-79: ROOF CRUSH BASELINE AFTER CRUSH VIEW 843
FIGURE 4.18-80: ROOF CRUSH PLASTIC STRAIN AREAS ISO VIEW AT IOOMS 844
FIGURE 4.18-81: ROOF CRUSH PLASTIC STRAIN AREAS FRONT VIEW AT IOOMS 844
FIGURE 4.18-82: ROOF CRUSH PLASTIC STRAIN AREAS SIDE VIEW AT IOOMS 845
FIGURE 4.18-83: ROOF CRUSH PLASTIC STRAIN AREAS TOP VIEW AT IOOMS 845
FIGURE 4.18-84: ROOF CRUSH FORCE vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT OF BASELINE 846
FIGURE 4.18-85: ROOF STRENGTH TO WEIGHT RATIO 847
FIGURE 4.18-86: PHASE THREE TASK SUMMARY 848
FIGURE 4.18-87: GAUGE MAP OF FRONT DOOR 849
FIGURE 4.18-88: MATERIAL GRADE MAP OF FRONT DOOR 850
FIGURE 4.18-89: FRONT DOOR LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 851
FIGURE 4.18-90: GAUGE MAP OF REAR DOOR 853
FIGURE 4.18-91: GAUGE MAP OF REAR DOOR HINGES 853
FIGURE 4.18-92: GAUGE MAP OF REAR DOOR 854
FIGURE 4.18-93: REAR DOOR LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 855
FIGURE 4.18-94: GAUGE MAP OF HOOD 856
FIGURE 4.18-95: MATERIAL GRADE MAP OF HOOD 857
FIGURE 4.18-96: MATERIAL GRADE MAP OF HOOD 858
FIGURE 4.18-97: GAUGE MAP OF TAILGATE 860
FIGURE 4.18-98: MATERIAL GRADE MAP OF TAILGATE 860
FIGURE 4.18-99: TAILGATE LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS 861
FIGURE 4.18-100: OPTIMIZED FINAL DESIGN 862
FIGURE 4.18-101: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED FRAME 864
FIGURE 4.18-102: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED FRAME 864
FIGURE 4.18-103: ALUMINUM CROSS MEMBERS OF FRAME 865
FIGURE 4.18-104: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED CABIN 866
FIGURE 4.18-105: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED CABIN 866
FIGURE 4.18-106: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED CARGO Box 867
FIGURE 4.18-107: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED CARGO Box 867
FIGURE 4.18-108: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED FRONT BUMPER 868
FIGURE 4.18-109: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED FRONT BUMPER 868
FIGURE 4.18-110: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED REAR BUMPER 869
FIGURE 4.18-111: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED REAR BUMPER 869
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 15
FIGURE 4.18-112: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED CLOSURES 870
FIGURE 4.18-113: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED CLOSURES 871
FIGURE 4.18-114: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED IP CROSS MEMBER 871
FIGURE 4.18-115: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED IP CROSS MEMBER 872
FIGURE 4.18-116: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED RADIATOR SUPPORT 872
FIGURE 4.18-117: MATERIAL MAP OF OPTIMIZED RADIATOR SUPPORT 873
FIGURE 4.18-118: DEFORMATION MODE LEFT SIDE VIEW AT 150MS 879
FIGURE 4.18-119: DEFORMATION MODE FRONT VIEW AT 150MS 879
FIGURE 4.18-120: DEFORMATION MODE BOTTOM VIEW AT 150MS (BASELINE, LEFT; OPTIMIZED, RIGHT) 879
FIGURE 4.18-121: DEFORMATION MODE ISO VIEW AT 150MS 880
FIGURE 4.18-122: DEFORMATION MODE UNDERBODY VIEW AT SOMS (BASELINE, LEFT; OPTIMIZED, RIGHT) 880
FIGURE 4.18-123: CAE COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 881
FIGURE 4.18-124: CAE COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 881
FIGURE 4.18-125: CAE COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 882
FIGURE 4.18-126: DEFORMATION MODE TOP VIEW AT 150MS 883
FIGURE 4.18-127: DEFORMATION MODE ISO VIEW AT 150MS 883
FIGURE 4.18-128: DEFORMATION MODE LEFT SIDE VIEW AT 150MS 884
FIGURE 4.18-129: DEFORMATION MODE BOTTOM VIEW AT 150MS-BASELINE 884
FIGURE 4.18-130: DEFORMATION MODE BOTTOM VIEW AT 150MS-OPTIMIZED 885
FIGURE 4.18-131: CAE COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 885
FIGURE 4.18-132: CAE COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED (WITH BARRIER DEFORMATION) 886
FIGURE 4.18-133: CAE COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 886
FIGURE 4.18-134: IIHS FRONTAL DASH PANEL INTRUSION PLOT 887
FIGURE 4.18-135: GLOBAL DEFORMATION MODES OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 889
FIGURE 4.18-136: DEFORMATION MODES OF FRONT AND REAR DOORS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 890
FIGURE 4.18-137: REAR DOOR APERTURE DEFORMATIONS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 890
FIGURE 4.18-138: FMVSS SIDE INTRUSION PLOT 891
FIGURE 4.18-139: GLOBAL DEFORMATION MODES OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 893
FIGURE 4.18-140: DEFORMATION MODES OF FRONT AND REAR DOORS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 893
FIGURE 4.18-141: REAR DOOR APERTURE DEFORMATIONS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 894
FIGURE 4.18-142: IIHS SIDE INTRUSION PLOT 895
FIGURE 4.18-143: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION COMPARISON WITH SURVIVAL SPACE RATE 896
FIGURE 4.18-144: SIDE STRUCTURE EXTERIOR CRUSH COMPARISON 897
FIGURE 4.18-145: GLOBAL DEFORMATION MODES OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS TOP VIEW AT 200 MS ...898
FIGURE 4.18-146: GLOBAL DEFORMATION MODES OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS SIDE VIEW AT 200MS ...899
FIGURE 4.18-147: GLOBAL DEFORMATION MODES OF BASELINE (TOP) AND OPTIMIZED (BOTTOM) MODELS BOTTOM
VIEWAT200MS 900
FIGURE 4.18-148: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION PLOT OF OPTIMIZED MODEL AT OL SECTION 901
FIGURE 4.18-149: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON OF OPTIMIZED MODEL - LEFT SIDE VIEW AT 120MS 902
FIGURE 4.18-150: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON OF BASELINE (TOP) AND OPTIMIZED (BOTTOM) MODEL REAR
STRUCTURE AREA-LEFT SIDE VIEWS AT! 20MS 903
FIGURE 4.18-151: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON OF BASELINE (TOP) AND OPTIMIZED (BOTTOM) MODEL -
BOTTOM VIEWS AT 120MS 904
FIGURE 4.18-152: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON OF BASELINE (TOP) AND OPTIMIZED (BOTTOM) REAR
UNDERBODY STRUCTURE-BOTTOM VIEWS AT 120MS 905
FIGURE 4.18-153: COMPARISON OF FUEL TANK SYSTEM INTEGRITY (BASELINE, TOP; OPTIMIZED, BOTTOM) 906
FIGURE 4.18-154: DEFORMATION MODE COMPARISON OF ROOF CRUSH 908
FIGURE 4.18-155: ROOF CRUSH PLASTIC STRAIN AREAS ISO VIEW AT IOOMS 909
FIGURE 4.18-156: ROOF CRUSH PLASTIC STRAIN AREAS FRONT VIEW AT IOOMS 909
FIGURE 4.18-157: ROOF CRUSH PLASTIC STRAIN AREAS SIDE VIEW AT IOOMS 910
FIGURE 4.18-158: ROOF CRUSH PLASTIC STRAIN AREAS TOP VIEW AT IOOMS 910
FIGURE 4.18-159: ROOF CRUSH LOAD vs. DISPLACEMENT PLOT 911
FIGURE 4.18-160: ROOF STRENGTH TO WEIGHT RATIO COMPARISON 911
FIGURE 4.18-161: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED FRONT DOOR 913
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 16
FIGURE 4.18-162: MATERIAL GRADE MAP OF OPTIMIZED FRONT DOOR 914
FIGURE 4.18-163: GAUGE MAP OF REAR DOOR 915
FIGURE 4.18-164: MATERIAL GRADE MAP OF OPTIMIZED REAR DOOR 916
FIGURE 4.18-165: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED HOOD 917
FIGURE 4.18-166: MATERIAL GRADE MAP OF OPTIMIZED HOOD 917
FIGURE 4.18-167: GAUGE MAP OF OPTIMIZED TAILGATE 918
FIGURE 4.18-168: MATERIAL GRADE MAP OF OPTIMIZED TAILGATE 919
FIGURE 4.18-169: VEHICLE HEIGHT DIMENSION BASELINE 920
FIGURE 4.18-170: FRONT SUSPENSION DAMPER CHARACTERISTICS 927
FIGURE 4.18-171: REAR SUSPENSION DAMPER CHARACTERISTICS BASELINE MODEL 927
FIGURE 4.18-172: OCCUPANTS POSITIONS AND CARGO MEASUREMENTS 929
FIGURE 4.18-173: VEHICLE DYNAMICS MODEL 930
FIGURE 4.18-174: STEERING WHEEL ANGLE OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 933
FIGURE 4.18-175: FRONT/REAR CORNERING COMPLIANCE 933
FIGURE 4.18-176: COMBINED TIRE LOAD 935
FIGURE 4.18-177: FRONT AND REAR SUSPENSION (MoTioNViEWMODEL) 939
FIGURE 4.18-178: MOTIONVIEW VERSUS K & C DATA COMPARISON 939
FIGURE 4.18-179: FRONT SUSPENSION 940
FIGURE 4.18-180: REAR SUSPENSION 941
FIGURE 4.18-181 :MGA PROVING GROUND EVENTS 942
FIGURE 4.18-182: FEA MODEL: FRONT LOADCASES 943
FIGURE 4.18-183 :FEA MODEL: RE ARLOADCASES 943
FIGURE 4.18-184: BASELINE FRAME: STRESS AND FATIGUE RESULTS 944
FIGURE 4.18-185: LIGHTWEIGHT OPTIMIZED FRAME: STRESS AND FATIGUE RESULTS 944
FIGURE 4.18-186: LIGHTWEIGHT OPTIMIZED FRAME: FRONT LOADS RESULTS 945
FIGURE 4.18-187: LIGHTWEIGHT OPTIMIZED FRAME: REAR LOADS RESULTS 945
FIGURE 4.18-188: FMVSS 214 STHPOLE IMPACT-RESULTS 951
FIGURE 4.18-189: IIHSMDB SIDE IMPACT-RESULTS 951
FIGURE 4.18-190: FMVSS 216AROOF CRUSH-RESULTS 952
FIGURE 4.18-191 :IIHS FRONTAL IMPACT (ODB)-RESULTS 953
FIGURE 6.1-1: LIGHTWEIGHTING TRADE-OFF TREND 964
FIGURE 7.2-1: STL DATA SAMPLES OF FRAME ASSEMBLY 995
FIGURE 7.2-2: MATERIAL CURVES OF STRESS vs. STRAIN 998
FIGURE 7.2-3: MATERIAL CURVES OF STRESS vs. STRAIN 999
FIGURE 7.2-4: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN FRONT CRASH 1000
FIGURE 7.2-5: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN FRONT OFFSET CRASH 1001
FIGURE 7.2-6: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN SIDE CRASH 1001
FIGURE 7.2-7: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN REAR CRASH 1002
FIGURE 7.2-8: SECTION FORCE OF BASELINE MODEL IN ROOF CRUSH 1002
FIGURE 7.2-9: SECTION FORCE BAR CHART 1003
FIGURE 7.2-10: NORMALIZED COMBINED SECTIONAL FORCE BAR CHART 1003
FIGURE 7.2-11: WEIGHT REDUCTION OF FRAME 1004
FIGURE 7.2-12: WEIGHT REDUCTION OF CABIN 1004
FIGURE 7.2-13: WEIGHT REDUCTION OF CARGO Box 1005
FIGURE 7.2-14: WEIGHT REDUCTION OF FRONT BUMPER 1005
FIGURE 7.2-15: WEIGHT REDUCTION OF REAR BUMPER 1006
List of Images
IMAGE 2.2-1: 2011 CHEVROLET SILVERADO FRONT SUSPENSION MODULE AS REMOVED DURING THE TEARDOWN
PROCESS 58
IMAGE 2.2-2: CHEVROLET SILVERADO FRONT STRUT ASSEMBLY DISASSEMBLED 59
IMAGE 2.3-1: BENDING STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP AT THE LABORATORY 96
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 17
IMAGE 2.3-2: TORSION STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP 97
IMAGE 2.3-3: BENDING STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP 102
IMAGE 2.3-4: TORSION STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP 103
IMAGE 2.3-5 (LEFT): PUSH IN/OUT TEST 110
IMAGE 2.3-6 (RIGHT): TORSION TEST 110
IMAGE 2.3-7: BENDING STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP 114
IMAGE 2.3-8: TORSION STIFFNESS TESTING SETUP 115
IMAGE 4.1-1: SILVERADO BASE ENGINE (5.3LITERLC9) 248
IMAGE 4.1-2: SILVERADO ENGINE MOUNT DIAGRAM 253
IMAGE 4.1-3: SILVERADO ENGINE MOUNT AND ENGINE LIFT BRACKET 254
IMAGE 4.1-4:PoLYAMiDE ENGINE MOUNT 254
IMAGE 4.1-5: (LEFT) POLYAMIDETORQUEDAMPENER 255
IMAGE 4.1-6: (RIGHT) POLYAMIDE ENGINE MOUNT 255
IMAGE 4.1-7: MAGNESIUM ENGINE MOUNT-2013 CADILLAC ATS 256
IMAGE 4.1-8: ENGINE MOUNT COMPONENTS 258
IMAGE 4.1-9: ENGINE LIFT BRACKET 258
IMAGE 4.1-10: KEY COMPONENTS-CRANK DRIVE 261
IMAGE 4.1-11: (LEFT) ALUMINUM CONNECTING ROD 262
IMAGE 4.1-12: (RIGHT) TITANIUM CONNECTING ROD 262
IMAGE 4.1-13: (LEFT) SOLID CAST CRANKSHAFT (SILVERADO) 265
IMAGE 4.1-14: (RIGHT) CORED CRANKSHAFT (BMW) 265
IMAGE 4.1-15: BMW 4.4LV8 265
IMAGE 4.1-16: (LEFT) VORTECH PM ROD 266
IMAGE 4.1-17: (RIGHT) FEVC-70 ROD 266
IMAGE 4.1-18: FEVC-70 ROD PRINCIPLE STRESS ANALYSIS 267
IMAGE 4.1-19: (LEFT) SILVERADO PISTON PIN 267
IMAGE 4.1-20: (RIGHT) TAPERED PISTON PIN 267
IMAGE 4.1-21: KEY COMPONENTS-CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM 270
IMAGE 4.1-22: CYLINDER DEACTIVATION BOSSES 272
IMAGE 4.1-23: (LEFT) SILVERADO MAIN SEAL HOUSING 273
IMAGE 4.1-24: (RIGHT) PLASTIC TIMING COVER 273
IMAGE 4.1-25: (LEFT) [BASE TECHNOLOGY] CAST IRON CYLINDER LINERS 275
IMAGE 4.1-26: (RIGHT) [NEW TECHNOLOGY] PLASM A TRANSFER WIRE ARC (PTW A) 275
IMAGE 4.1-27: CYLINDER DEACTIVATION PLATE 276
IMAGE 4.1-28: KEY COMPONENTS-CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 278
IMAGE 4.1-29: (LEFT) SILVERADO VALVE COVER 280
IMAGE 4.1-30: (RIGHT) CHRYSLER 4.7LV8 VALVE COVER 280
IMAGE 4.1 -31: VALVETRAIN ASSEMBLY 283
IMAGE 4.1-32: (LEFT) OVATE WIRE PROFILE 284
IMAGE 4.1-33: (RIGHT) SPRING HEIGHT, OVATE vs. STANDARD 284
IMAGE 4.1-34: HOLLOW STEM ENGINE VALVE - CORVETTE 286
IMAGE 4.1-35 :MAHLE SHEET STEEL VALVE 287
IMAGE 4.1-36: [BASE TECHNOLOGY] VALVE SPRING 287
IMAGE 4.1-37: ALUMINUM ROCKER ARM 288
IMAGE 4.1-38: ALUMINUM PHASER SPROCKET AND ROTOR 289
IMAGE 4.1-39: PLASTIC STATOR 289
IMAGE 4.1-40 :HYDROFORMED CAMSHAFT 290
IMAGE 4.1-41: HOLLOW CAST CAMSHAFT- 1.4LEcoTEC 290
IMAGE 4.1-42: (LEFT): 5.3L HOLLOW CAST CONCEPT CAD 291
IMAGE 4.1-43: (RIGHT): 5.3L CAMSHAFT-SECTIONED 291
IMAGE 4.1-44: WIRING BRACKET-PHASER 292
IMAGE 4.1-45: CAMSHAFT RETAINING PLATE-PHASER 292
IMAGE 4.1-46: SILVERADO TIMING DRIVE SYSTEM 295
IMAGE 4.1-47: NYLON TENSIONING AND GUIDE SYSTEM 295
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 18
IMAGE 4.1-48: MAGNESIUM TIMING COVER-PORSCHE 296
IMAGE 4.1-49: (LEFT) SILVERADO FRONT COVER 298
IMAGE 4.1-50: PLASTIC FRONT COVER 4.3LVORTECH 298
IMAGE 4.1-51: ACCESSORY DRIVE SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 300
IMAGE 4.1-52 (LEFT): PLASTIC WATER PUMP PULLEY-BMW 3.0L 302
IMAGE 4.1-53 (RIGHT): PLASTIC POWER STEERING PULLEY-BMW 3.0L 302
IMAGE 4.1-54: PLASTIC CRANKSHAFT PULLEY-EAGLE PICHER ANDDUPONT 302
IMAGE 4.1-55 (LEFT): METAL AC COMPRESSOR PULLEY SILVERADO 303
IMAGE 4.1-56 (RIGHT): PLASTIC AC COMPRESSOR PULLEY VOLKSWAGEN POLO 303
IMAGE 4.1-57: IDLER PULLEY SILVERADO 304
IMAGE 4.1-58: PLASTIC IDLER PULLEY NISSAN FRONTIER 304
IMAGE 4.1-59: AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 307
IMAGE 4.1-60 (LEFT): THROTTLE BODY-PLASTIC HOUSING 308
IMAGE 4.1-61: INTAKE MANIFOLD, SILVERADO 309
IMAGE 4.1-62: 3M GLASS BUBBLE IM16K 311
IMAGE 4.1-63: AIR Box LOWER/UPPER AND AIR INTAKE DUCT MUCELL-9% MASS SAVINGS 311
IMAGE 4.1-64: FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 313
IMAGE 4.1-65: FUEL RAIL WITH INTEGRATED PULSATION DAMPENER 314
IMAGE 4.1-66: EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 316
IMAGE 4.1-67: (LEFT) FABRICATED V8 EXHAUST MANIFOLD (LS7 CORVETTE) 316
IMAGE 4.1-68: (RIGHT) FABRICATED EXHAUST MANIFOLD 316
IMAGE 4.1-69 (RIGHT): INTEGRATED EXHAUST MANIFOLD 317
IMAGE 4.1-70: SILVERADO CYLINDER HEAD AND EXHAUST MANIFOLD 319
IMAGE 4.1-71: LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 322
IMAGE 4.1-72: PLASTIC DIP STICK TUBE (BMW 2L DIESEL) 323
IMAGE 4.1-73 (LEFT): ALUMINUM OIL PAN SILVERADO 325
IMAGE 4.1-74 (RIGHT): MAGNESIUM OIL PAN NISSAN GTR 325
IMAGE 4.1-75 (LEFT): SILVERADO WINDAGE TRAY 326
IMAGE 4.1-76 (RIGHT): FORD 5.0L WINDAGE TRAY 326
IMAGE 4.1-77 (LEFT): SILVERADO OIL PICK-UP TUBE 326
IMAGE 4.1-78 (RIGHT): Focus OIL PICK-UP TUBE 326
IMAGE 4.1-79: SILVERADO COOLING SUBSYSTEM 329
IMAGE 4.1-80: WATER PUMP IMPELLER HOUSING-PLASTIC 330
IMAGE 4.1-81 (LEFT): TRANSMISSION HEAT TRANSFER ELEMENT-COPPER ALLOY 330
IMAGE 4.1-82 (RIGHT): TRANSMISSION HEAT TRANSFER ELEMENT-ALUMINUM ALLOY 330
IMAGE 4.1-83 (LEFT): ELECTRIC WATER PUMP PIERBURGCWA 400 332
IMAGE 4.1-84 (RIGHT): SMALL BLOCK CHEVROLET ELECTRIC WATER PUMP-PROFORM 332
IMAGE 4.1-85 (LEFT): SILVERADO WATER PUMP AND PULLEY 333
IMAGE 4.1-86 (RIGHT): DAVIES CRAIG EWP115 333
IMAGE 4.1-87 FAN SHROUD: MUCELL 15% MASS SAVINGS; FAN BLADES: MUCELL 7% MASS SAVINGS) 334
IMAGE 4.1-88: ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 337
IMAGE 4.1-89: SILVERADO COIL BRACKET 338
IMAGE 4.1-90:2014LT1 INTEGRATED COIL MOUNT VALVE COVER 339
IMAGE 4.1-91: ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM COMPONENTS 340
IMAGE 4.1-92 (LEFT): [BASE TECHNOLOGY] ACCESSORY BRACKET 342
IMAGE 4.1-93 (RIGHT): [NEW TECHNOLOGY] ACCESSORY BRACKET w/o PS 342
IMAGE 4.1-94 (LEFT): [BASE TECHNOLOGY] AC COMP BRACKET 343
IMAGE 4.1-95 (RIGHT): [NEW TECHNOLOGY] STEERING COLUMN BRACKET 343
IMAGE 4.2-1: GENERAL MOTORS 6L80E AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION 349
IMAGE 4.2-2: CASE SUBSYSTEM HOUSINGS 352
IMAGE 4.2-3:2004 BAR HONDA TEAM COMPOSITE GEARBOX 353
IMAGE 4.2-4: GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM 358
IMAGE 4.2-5: PLANET CARRIER SUB-SUBSYSTEM 359
IMAGE 4.2-6: THRUST BEARING 360
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 19
IMAGE 4.2-7: INTERNAL CLUTCH SUBSYSTEM 362
IMAGE 4.2-8: SPRAG CLUTCH ASSEMBLY 364
IMAGE 4.2-9: GEAR DRUM FORMED BY IRONING SIDE WALL OF CUP 365
IMAGE 4.2-10: RESISTANCE HEATING OF SIDE WALL IN HOT SPLINE FORMING OF GEAR DRUM 365
IMAGE 4.2-11: HOT SPLINE FORMING OF DIE-QUENCHED GEAR DRUM USING RESISTANCE HEATING 366
IMAGE 4.2-12: TORQUE CONVERTER 368
IMAGE 4.2-13: TORQUE CONVERTER FRONT COVER 371
IMAGE 4.2-14: MMC PREFORM 372
IMAGE 4.2-15: ALUMINUM TORQUE CONVERTER 373
IMAGE 4.2-16: ALUMINUM OIL PUMP ASSEMBLY 376
IMAGE 4.2-17: ALUMINUM VALVE BODY ASSEMBLY 380
IMAGE 4.2-18: PARKING MECHANISM SUBSYSTEM 382
IMAGE 4.2-19: STEEL PARKING PAWL 384
IMAGE 4.2-20:6L80E TRANSMISSION AND TRANSFER CASE 387
IMAGE 4.3-1: CHEVROLET SILVERADO INTERIOR 397
IMAGE 4.3-2: SAMPLE PART CROSS SECTION VIEW 399
IMAGE 4.3-3: SAMPLE PART FRONT FACE VIEW OF CLASS "A" SURFACE WITH POLYONE 400
IMAGE 4.3-4: SAMPLE PART FRONT FACE VIEW 401
IMAGE 4.3-5: SILVERADO IP MAIN MOLDING 401
IMAGE 4.3-6: CHEVROLET SILVERADO DOOR SEAL 410
IMAGE 4.3-7 (LEFT): FRONT SEATING WITH CENTER CONSOLE 415
IMAGE 4.3-8 (RIGHT): FRONT AND PASSENGER SEATS ARE COMMON 415
IMAGE 4.3-9: FRONT AND PASSENGER SEAT BACKFRAME 415
IMAGE 4.3-10: FRONT AND PASSENGER SEAT BOTTOM FRAME 416
IMAGE 4.3-11 (LEFT): FRONT CENTER CONSOLE SEAT 416
IMAGE 4.3-12 (RIGHT): FRONT CENTER CONSOLE SEATFLOORBRACKET 416
IMAGE 4.3-13: FRONT CENTER CONSOLE SEAT MIDDLE OR TUB BRACKET 417
IMAGE 4.3-14: FRONT CENTER CONSOLE SEAT MIDDLE OR TUB COVER BRACKET 417
IMAGE 4.3-15: REAR 60% AND 40% SEAT 418
IMAGE 4.3-16: REAR 60% SEAT 418
IMAGE 4.3-17: REAR 60% SEAT BACKFRAME 419
IMAGE 4.3-18: REAR 60% SEAT BOTTOM FRAME 419
IMAGE 4.3-19 (LEFT): REAR 40% SEAT 420
IMAGE 4.3-20 (CENTER): REAR 40% SEAT BACKFRAME 420
IMAGE 4.3-21 (RIGHT): REAR 40% SEAT BOTTOM FRAME 420
IMAGE 4.3-22:THKOMLDING MACHINE PROCESS 424
IMAGE 4.3 -23: THKOMOLDING MACHINE 424
IMAGE4.3-24:THKOMOLDINGPART 425
IMAGE 4.3-25: THKOMOLDING LEXUS SEAT BACK Ex AMPLE 426
IMAGE 4.3-26: COLD CHAMBER MAGNESIUM DIE CASTING MACHINE 429
IMAGE 4.3-27: CONCEPT OF THE GM CORVETTE SEAT BACK FRAME 430
IMAGE 4.3-28: CONCEPT OF THE SILVERADO SEAT BACK FRAME 430
IMAGE 4.3-29: CONCEPT OF THE SILVERADO SEAT BOTTOM FRAME 431
IMAGE 4.3-30: OPAL ASTRA SEAT BOTTOM FRAME USING THE BASF LAMINATE 431
IMAGE 4.3-31: BASF LAMINATE 432
IMAGE 4.3-32: OPAL ASTRA FRONT SEAT PAN 432
IMAGE 4.3-33: INJECTION MOLDING OPERATION WITH BASF LAMINATE 433
IMAGE 4.3-34: LAMINATE AND TAPE APPLICATIONS 434
IMAGE 4.3-35: PROTOTYPE-SEAT BACKREST WITH OVER-MOLDED TAPE REINFORCEMENT EXAMPLE 434
IMAGE 4.3-36: CHEVROLET SILVERADO DASH ASSEMBLY 437
IMAGE 4.3-37: CHEVROLET SILVERADO CROSS-CAR BEAM 437
IMAGE 4.3-38: TOP OF DASH, IP BASE WITH SKIN COVER 438
IMAGE 4.3-39: DASH, INNER SUPPORT 438
IMAGE 4.3-40: DODGE CALIBER MAGNESIUM CROSS-CAR BEAM 440
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 20
IMAGE 4.3-41:CCB EXAMPLES COMPARED BY THE STOLFIG GROUP 441
IMAGE 4.3-42: SILVERADO IP WITH MOUNTED PASSENGER AIRBAG 446
IMAGE 4.3-43: SILVERADO PASSENGER AIRBAG 446
IMAGE 4.3-44: SILVERADO STEERING WHEEL AIRBAG ASSEMBLY AND VARIOUS FASTENERS 447
IMAGE 4.3-45: PASSENGER SIDE AIRBAG HOUSINGS, FABRICATED STEEL ASSEMBLY (LEFT) AND INJECTION MOLDED
PLASTIC COMPONENT (RIGHT) 448
IMAGE4.3-46: AIRBAG HOUSING (LEFT) AND PLASTIC AIRBAG HOUSING RENDERING (RIGHT) 448
IMAGE 4.3-47: STANDARD AIRBAG MODULE (LEFT) AND VFT MODULE (RIGHT) 449
IMAGE 4.3-48: VFT AIRBAG FOIL 450
IMAGE 4.3-49: VFT AIRBAG USED IN FERRARI 458 ITALIA (LEFT) AND MCLAREN MP4-12C (RIGHT) 450
IMAGE 4.3-50: COMPARISON OF DUAL-(LEFT) AND SINGLE-STAGE (RIGHT) AIRBAG INFLATORS 451
IMAGE 4.3-51: STEERING WHEEL AIRBAG HOUSING FOR CHEVROLET CRUZE 452
IMAGE 4.3-52: SIDE-BY-SIDE COMPARISON OF CHEVROLET SILVERADO STEEL HOUSING AND THE CHEVROLET CRUZE
PLASTIC AIRBAG HOUSING 452
IMAGE 4.4-1: EXTERIOR TRIM-CHROME-PLATED PLASTIC GRILL WITH EMBLEM 459
IMAGE 4.4-2: EXTERIOR TRIM-TAILGATE FINISHING PANEL 459
IMAGE 4.4-3: EXTERIOR TRIM-DOOR FINISHING PANEL 459
IMAGE 4.4-4: EXTERIOR TRIM-COWL VENT GRILL ASSEMBLY 459
IMAGE 4.4-5 (LEFT): INSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR 464
IMAGE 4.4-6 (RIGHT): OUTSIDE REAR VIEW MIRROR 464
IMAGE 4.4-7: FRONT FASCIA 467
IMAGE 4.4-8: FRONT FASCIA BUMPERS 467
IMAGE 4.4-9: FRONT FASCIA AIR DAM 467
IMAGE 4.4-10: REAR BUMPER GUARD-CENTER 470
IMAGE 4.4-11: REAR BUMPER GUARDS-LH/RH SIDES 470
IMAGE 4.5-2 (LEFT): LAMINATED GLASS WINDSHIELD, BROKEN 479
IMAGE 4.5-3 (RIGHT): TEMPERED GLASS WINDSHIELD, BROKEN 479
IMAGE 4.5-4:EXATEC PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY EXAMPLES 481
IMAGE 4.5-5: WIPER ASSEMBLY 490
IMAGE 4.5-6: SOLVENT BOTTLE 490
IMAGE 4.5-7 (LEFT): BEAM (FLAT) BLADE 491
IMAGE 4.5-8 (RIGHT): CONVENTIONAL BLADE 491
IMAGE 4.6-1: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM 497
IMAGE 4.6-2: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 497
IMAGE 4.6-3: FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY 499
IMAGE 4.6-4: LOWER CONTROL ARM ASSEMBLY CURRENT ASSEMBLY 500
IMAGE 4.6-5: LOWER BALL JOINT SUB-ASSEMBLY 500
IMAGE 4.6-6: LOWER CONTROL ARM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 501
IMAGE 4.6-7: STEERING KNUCKLE CURRENT COMPONENT 502
IMAGE 4.6-8: UPPER CONTROL ARM ASSEMBLY CURRENT ASSEMBLY 503
IMAGE 4.6-9: UPPER BALL JOINT SUB-ASSEMBLY 503
IMAGE 4.6-10: UPPER CONTROL ARM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 504
IMAGE 4.6-11: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM CURRENT COMPONENT 505
IMAGE 4.6-12: BMW ACTIVE ROLL STABILIZATION SYSTEM 506
IMAGE 4.6-13: FRONT STABILIZER BAR CURRENT COMPONENT 506
IMAGE 4.6-14: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENTS 507
IMAGE 4.6-15: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING CURRENT COMPONENTS 508
IMAGE 4.6-16: STABILIZER LINK CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 508
IMAGE 4.6-17: FRONT SUSPENSION MASS REDUCED SYSTEM 515
IMAGE 4.6-18: LOWER CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 516
IMAGE 4.6-19: BUICK LACROSSE REAR CONTROL ARM 516
IMAGE 4.6-20: LOWER CONTROL ARM BUSHING MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 517
IMAGE 4.6-21: LOWER CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED 518
IMAGE 4.6-22:2009 CHEVROLET SILVERADO LOWER CONTROL ARM ALUMINUM FORGING 518
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 21
IMAGE 4.6-23: UPPER CONTROL ARM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 519
IMAGE 4.6-24: LAMBORGHINI SESTOELEMENTO FRONT LOWER CONTROL ARM 520
IMAGE 4.6-25: FRONT BALL JOINT MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY 521
IMAGE 4.6-26: UPPER CONTROL ARM BUSHING MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 522
IMAGE 4.6-27: STEERING KNUCKLE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 523
IMAGE 4.6-28: STABILIZER BAR SYSTEM MASS REDUCED SYSTEM 523
IMAGE 4.6-29: STABILIZER BAR MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 524
IMAGE 4.6-30: STABILIZER BAR MOUNT BUSHING MASS-REDUCED COMPONENT 525
IMAGE 4.6-31: REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM 526
IMAGE 4.6-32: REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 526
IMAGE 4.6-33: REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY 528
IMAGE 4.6-34: REAR LEAF SPRING CURRENT ASSEMBLY 529
IMAGE 4.6-35: FRONT AND REAR LEAF SPRING BUSHING CURRENT ASSEMBLY 529
IMAGE 4.6-36: SHACKLE BRACKET CURRENT ASSEMBLY 530
IMAGE 4.6-37: SHACKLE BRACKET CURRENT COMPONENT 530
IMAGE 4.6-38: SHACKLE BRACKET BUSHING ASSEMBLY CURRENT COMPONENT 531
IMAGE 4.6-39: SADDLE BRACKET CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 532
IMAGE 4.6-40: SPACER BLOCK CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 532
IMAGE 4.6-41: REAR SUSPENSION ROTOR MASS REDUCED SYSTEM APPLICATION EXAMPLE 538
IMAGE 4.6-42: REAR LEAF SPRING MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 538
IMAGE 4.6-43: FRONT AND REAR LEAF SPRING BUSHING ASSEMBLY 539
IMAGE 4.6-44: LOWERU BOLT SPACER BLOCK MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 540
IMAGE 4.6-45: SADDLE BRACKET MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 540
IMAGE 4.6-46: SHACKLE BRACKET MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY 541
IMAGE 4.6-47: SHACKLE BRACKET 542
IMAGE 4.6-48: SHACKLE BRACKET BUSHING MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 542
IMAGE 4.6-49: FRONT SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY COMPONENTS 543
IMAGE 4.6-50: FRONT STRUT/DAMPER SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 544
IMAGE 4.6-51: FRONT STRUT MODULE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM CURRENT CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE 545
IMAGE 4.6-52: FRONT STRUT COIL SPRING CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 546
IMAGE 4.6-53: FRONT STRUT MOUNTING SHAFT CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 547
IMAGE 4.6-54: FIRST COMPOSITE MATERIAL COIL SPRINGS GLASS FIBER REINFORCED POLYMER (GFRP) 547
IMAGE 4.6-55: DELPHI MAGNERIDE™ STRUT SYSTEM 548
IMAGE 4.6-56: FRONT STRUT/DAMPER ASSEMBLY MASS REDUCED CONFIGURATION EXAMPLE 550
IMAGE 4.6-57: FRONT STRUT COIL SPRING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT Ex AMPLE 551
IMAGE 4.6-58: FRONT STRUT MOUNTING MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 552
IMAGE 4.6-59: ROAD WHEEL AND TIRE POSITION DIAGRAM 553
IMAGE 4.6-60: ROAD WHEEL AND TIRE CURRENT ASSEMBLY 555
IMAGE 4.6-61: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT 555
IMAGE 4.6-62: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT DESIGN EXAMPLE 556
IMAGE 4.6-63: SPARE WHEEL AND TIRE CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 557
IMAGE 4.6-64: SPARE WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT EXAMPLE 557
IMAGE 4.6-65: ROAD WHEEL CURRENT COMPONENT Ex AMPLE 558
IMAGE 4.6-66: LUG NUT CURRENT COMPONENTS 558
IMAGE 4.6-67: ROAD WHEEL AND TIRE MASS-REDUCED ASSEMBLY 562
IMAGE 4.6-68: ROAD WHEEL MASS-REDUCED COMPONENT 562
IMAGE 4.6-69: ROAD WHEEL MASS-REDUCED ASSEMBLY 563
IMAGE 4.6-70: SPARE WHEEL AND TIRE MASS-REDUCED ASSEMBLY 564
IMAGE 4.6-71: SPARE WHEEL MASS-REDUCED ASSEMBLY 564
IMAGE 4.6-72: ROAD WHEEL MASS-REDUCED COMPONENT 565
IMAGE 4.6-73: LUG NUT MASS-REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLES 566
IMAGE 4.7-1: SILVERADO FRONT PROPSHAFT AND YOKE 572
IMAGE 4.7-2: SILVERADO REARPROPSHAFT AND YOKE 573
IMAGE 4.7-3: NEAR NET SHAPE VARI-LITE® TUBE-AXLE HOUSING 577
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 22
IMAGE 4.7-4: BASE SILVERADO (LEFT)/SCHAEFFLER GROUP (RIGHT) DIFFERENTIALS 578
IMAGE 4.7-5: BASE SILVERADO FRONT DIFFERENTIAL (LEFT); LIGHT-WEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL (RIGHT) 581
IMAGE 4.7-6: LH AND RH FRONT DIFFERENTIAL MOUNTING BRACKETS 582
IMAGE 4.7-7: CHEVROLET SILVERADO HALF SHAFT ASSEMBLY, DISASSEMBLED 584
IMAGE 4.7-8: VARI-LITE® TUBE-AXLE HALF-SHAFT 585
IMAGE 4.8-1: FRONT ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 591
IMAGE 4.8-2: FRONT BRAKE SYSTEM CURRENT ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 593
IMAGE 4.8-3: FRONT ROTOR CURRENT COMPONENT 594
IMAGE 4.8-4: FRONT SPLASH SHIELD CURRENT COMPONENT 595
IMAGE 4.8-5: FRONT CALIPER CURRENT ASSEMBLY 596
IMAGE 4.8-6: FRONT CALIPER HOUSING CURRENT COMPONENT 597
IMAGE 4.8-7: FRONT CALIPER MOUNTING CURRENT COMPONENT 598
IMAGE 4.8-8: FRONT CALIPER PISTON CURRENT COMPONENTS 598
IMAGE 4.8-9: FRONT CALIPER BRAKE PAD CURRENT COMPONENTS 599
IMAGE 4.8-10: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 603
IMAGE 4.8-11: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 603
IMAGE 4.8-12: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 604
IMAGE 4.8-13: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 604
IMAGE 4.8-14: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 605
IMAGE 4.8-15: FRONT ROTOR SIZE NORMALIZATION MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 605
IMAGE 4.8-16: FRONT ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 606
IMAGE 4.8-17: FRONT SPLASH SHIELD MASS-REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLES 607
IMAGE 4.8-18: FRONT CALIPER MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 608
IMAGE 4.8-19: FRONT CALIPER ASSEMBLY COMPONENT DIAGRAM EXAMPLE 608
IMAGE 4.8-20: FRONT CALIPER HOUSING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 609
IMAGE 4.8-21: FRONT CALIPER MOUNTING MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 610
IMAGE 4.8-22: FRONT BRAKE SYSTEM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 610
IMAGE 4.8-23: REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM RELATIVE LOCATION DIAGRAM 612
IMAGE 4.8-24: REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM CURRENT MAJOR COMPONENTS 612
IMAGE 4.8-25: REAR BRAKE SYSTEM ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 614
IMAGE 4.8-26: REAR DRUM CURRENT COMPONENT 615
IMAGE 4.8-27: REAR BACKING PLATE ASSEMBLY CURRENT COMPONENTS 616
IMAGE 4.8-28: REAR BACKING PLATE CURRENT COMPONENT 616
IMAGE 4.8-29: REAR WHEEL CYLINDER HOUSING CURRENT COMPONENT 617
IMAGE 4.8-30: REAR GUIDE PLATE CURRENT COMPONENT 618
IMAGE 4.8-31: REAR GUIDE PLATE SPACER BLOCK CURRENT COMPONENT 618
IMAGE 4.8-32: REAR GUIDE PLATE RIVET CURRENT COMPONENT 619
IMAGE 4.8-33: REAR DRUM BRAKE PAD CURRENT COMPONENTS 620
IMAGE 4.8-34: ACTUATION LEVER CURRENT COMPONENTS 620
IMAGE 4.8-35: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 624
IMAGE 4.8-36: REAR ROTOR MASS REDUCED COMPONENT (WITH COOLING FINS) 625
IMAGE 4.8-37: CASTED REAR BACKING PLATE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 626
IMAGE 4.8-38: WHEEL CYLINDER HOUSING MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 627
IMAGE 4.8-39: ACTUATION LEVER MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 627
IMAGE 4.8-40: REAR BRAKE SYSTEM MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 628
IMAGE 4.8-41: PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES 630
IMAGE 4.8-42 (LEFT): TRW PARKBRAKE SYSTEM 632
IMAGE4.8-43 (RIGHT): VOLKSWAGENPARKBRAKE SYSTEM 632
IMAGE 4.8-44: KUESTER PARK BRAKE SYSTEM 632
IMAGE 4.8-45: PARKING BRAKE PEDAL FRAME CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 633
IMAGE 4.8-46: MOUNTING PLATE CURRENT COMPONENT 634
IMAGE 4.8-47: PARKING BRAKE LEVER CURRENT COMPONENT 634
IMAGE 4.8-48: COVER PLATE CURRENT COMPONENT 635
IMAGE 4.8-49: CABLE SYSTEM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES 635
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 23
IMAGE 4.8-50: MOUNTING PLATE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 637
IMAGE 4.8-51: PARKING BRAKE LEVER MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 638
IMAGE 4.8-52: COVER PLATE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 638
IMAGE 4.8-53: FRONT CABLE MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 639
IMAGE 4.8-54: REAR AXLE CABLE, LH MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 639
IMAGE 4.8-55: REAR AXLE CABLE, RH MASS REDUCED COMPONENT 640
IMAGE 4.8-56: BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM MAJOR COMPONENTS AND SUB-ASSEMBLIES 641
IMAGE 4.8-57: MASTER CYLINDER AND RESERVOIR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 643
IMAGE 4.8-58: BRAKE LINES AND HOSES CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLIES 643
IMAGE 4.8-59: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 644
IMAGE 4.8-60: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 645
IMAGE 4.8-61: BRAKE PEDAL SIDE PLATE CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 645
IMAGE 4.8-62: BRAKE PEDAL ARM CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 646
IMAGE 4.8-63: ACCELERATOR PEDAL ACTUATOR CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 646
IMAGE 4.8-64: ACCELERATOR PEDAL MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 649
IMAGE 4.8-65: BRAKE PEDAL ARM MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 649
IMAGE 4.8-66: BRAKE PEDAL PAD MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 650
IMAGE 4.8-67 (LEFT): FLAT BRAKE PEDAL PAD MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 650
IMAGE 4.8-68 (RIGHT): OFFSET BRAKE PEDAL PAD MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 650
IMAGE 4.8-69: BRAKE PEDAL ARM FRAME MASS REDUCED ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 651
IMAGE 4.8-70: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 652
IMAGE 4.8-71: BRAKE POWER BRAKE SUBSYSTEM MAJOR SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 654
IMAGE 4.8-72: TOYOTA PRIUS HYDRAULIC PRESSURE BOOSTER 655
IMAGE 4.8-73: JANELHYPERBRAKE HYDRAULIC PRESSURE BOOSTER 655
IMAGE 4.8-74: CONTINENTAL'S ALL ALUMINUM BRAKE BOOSTER 656
IMAGE 4.8-75: BRAKE PEDAL ACTUATOR MASS CURRENT SUB-ASSEMBLY 656
IMAGE 4.8-76: VACUUM BOOSTER FRONT SHELL CURRENT COMPONENT 657
IMAGE 4.8-77: VACUUM BOOSTER REAR SHELL CURRENT COMPONENT 658
IMAGE 4.8-78: PISTON, ACTUATOR CURRENT COMPONENT 658
IMAGE 4.8-79: STUD (MC TO BOOSTER) CURRENT COMPONENT 659
IMAGE 4.8-80: STUD (BOOSTER TO FIREWALL) CURRENT COMPONENT 659
IMAGE 4.8-81: PIVOT SHAFT, ACTUATOR CURRENT COMPONENT 660
IMAGE4.8-82: VACUUM BOOSTER FRONT BACKING PLATE, DIAPHRAGM CURRENT COMPONENT 660
IMAGE4.8-83: VACUUM BOOSTER REAR BACKING PLATE, DIAPHRAGM CURRENT COMPONENT 661
IMAGE 4.8-84: VACUUM BOOSTER SPACER PLATE, DIAPHRAGM CURRENT COMPONENT 661
IMAGE 4.8-85: VACUUM BOOSTER MASS REDUCED SUB-ASSEMBLY EXAMPLE 664
IMAGE 4.8-86: VACUUM BOOSTER FRONT SHELL MASS REDUCED COMPONENT EXAMPLE 664
IMAGE 4.8-87: VACUUM BOOSTER REAR SHELL REDUCED MASS COMPONENT Ex AMPLE 665
IMAGE 4.8-88: PISTON ACTUATOR 665
IMAGE 4.8-89: STUD (BOOSTER TO FIREWALL) CURRENT COMPONENT 666
IMAGE 4.8-90: STUD (MC TO BOOSTER) CURRENT COMPONENT 666
IMAGE 4.8-91: PIVOT SHAFT, ACTUATOR CURRENT COMPONENT 667
IMAGE 4.8-92: VACUUM BOOSTER FRONT BACKING PLATE REDUCED MASS COMPONENT EXAMPLE 667
IMAGE 4.8-93: VACUUM BOOSTER REAR BACKING PLATE REDUCED MASS COMPONENT EXAMPLE 668
IMAGE 4.8-94: VACUUM BOOSTER SPACER PLATE REDUCED MASS COMPONENT Ex AMPLE 668
IMAGE 4.9-1: CHEVROLET SILVERADO EXHAUST SYSTEM 672
IMAGE 4.9-2: CROSSOVER PIPE ASSEMBLY 675
IMAGE 4.9-3: CATALYTIC CONVERTER 676
IMAGE 4.9-4: CATALYTIC CONVERTER CORES 676
IMAGE 4.9-5 :CFOAM® CARBON FOAM 677
IMAGE 4.9-6: DOWN PIPE 678
IMAGE 4.9-7: MUFFLER WITH TAIL PIPE 679
IMAGE 4.9-8: PIPE SIDE HANGER BRACKETS 679
IMAGE 4.9-9: RUBBER HANGER (LEFT) AND CAR SIDE (RIGHT) HANGER BRACKETS 679
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 24
IMAGE 4.9-10: SILVERADO EXHAUST SYSTEM 680
IMAGE 4.9-11: TITANIUM EXHAUST SYSTEM 681
IMAGE 4.9-12: CARBON FIBER 681
IMAGE 4.9-13: HOLLOW HANGER BRACKETS 682
IMAGE 4.9-14 :EDPM HANGER 682
IMAGE 4.10-1: SILVERADO FUEL SYSTEM 689
IMAGE 4.10-2: FUEL TANK ASSEMBLY (FUEL TANK AND LINES SUBSYSTEM) 691
IMAGE 4.10-3: SILVERADO FUEL TANK 692
IMAGE 4.10-4: FUEL PUMP 694
IMAGE 4.10-5: FUEL PUMP MOUNT ASSEMBLY (ORIGINAL AT LEFT; NEW AT RIGHT) 694
IMAGE 4.10-6: FUEL PUMP AND RETAINING RING ASSEMBLY 697
IMAGE 4.10-7: PLASTIC (HOPE) FUEL TANK 697
IMAGE 4.10-8: FUEL PUMPING MODULE CAP (ORIGINAL SILVERADO, LEFT; POM PLASTIC, RIGHT) 698
IMAGE 4.10-9: THE FUEL VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 699
IMAGE 4.10-10: FUEL VAPOR CANISTERS 703
IMAGE 4.10-11: FUEL VAPOR CANISTER SUPPORT ON FRAME 703
IMAGE 4.11-1: SILVERADO STEERING SYSTEM 708
IMAGE 4.11-2: SILVERADO RACK AND PINION STEERING GEAR 709
IMAGE 4.11-3: SILVERADO STEERING KNUCKLE, LINK, TIE ROD, AND STEERING GEAR 711
IMAGE 4.11-4: SILVERADO HYDRAULIC PUMP AND RESERVOIR 714
IMAGE 4.11-5: SILVERADO HYDRAULIC EQUIPMENT 717
IMAGE 4.11-6: SILVERADO STEERING COLUMN 719
IMAGE 4.11-7: STEERING COLUMN ASSEMBLY, STEERING WHEEL ASSEMBLY, AND STEERING COLUMN COWL 722
IMAGE 4.12-1:2011 CHEVROLET SILVERADO MAIN HVAC UNIT 728
IM AGE 4.12-2: EX AMPLE OF A ZOTEFO AM UNDER IP AIR DUCT 730
IMAGE 4.12-3: CLOSE UP VIEW OF THE ZOTEFOAM UNDER IP AIR DUCT 730
IM AGE 4.12-4: TOYOTA VENZ A IP AIR DUCT (HOPE) 731
IMAGE 4.12-5: CHEVROLET SILVERADO IP AIR DUCT (HOPE) 731
IMAGE 4.13-1: DRIVER INFORMATION MODULE (INSTRUMENT CLUSTER) 736
IMAGE 4.13-2 (LEFT): CLUSTER MASK ASSEMBLY 740
IMAGE 4.13-3 (RIGHT): CLUSTER REAR HOUSING 740
IMAGE 4.13-4 (LEFT): DISPLAY HOUSING 740
IMAGE 4.13-5 (RIGHT): HORN OUTER PLASTIC COVER 740
IMAGE 4.13-6 (LEFT): HORN MOUNTING BRACKET 740
IMAGE 4.13-7 (RIGHT): HORN OUTSIDE STEEL COVER 740
IMAGE 4.14-1: CHEVROLET SILVERADO BATTERY ASSEMBLY 743
IMAGE 4.14-2:2011 CHEVROLET SILVERADO BATTERY 746
IMAGE 4.14-3:2011 CHEVROLET SILVERADO BATTERY TRAY 746
IMAGE 4.14-4:2011 CHEVROLET SILVERADO AUXILIARY BATTERY TRAY 747
IMAGE 4.14-5: HITACHI LITHIUM-ION BATTERY 753
IMAGE 4.14-6:2012 FORDF150 BATTERY TRAY ASSEMBLY 754
IMAGE 4.15-1: DELPHI ULTRA-LIGHT RADIO DESIGNS 758
IMAGE 4.16-1: CHEVROLET SILVERADO FRONT HEADLAMP ASSEMBLY 762
IMAGE 4.16-2: CHEVROLET SILVERADO FRONT HEADLAMP HOUSING 762
IMAGE 4.16-3: CHEVROLET SILVERADO HEADLAMP ASSEMBLY INNER REFLECTOR 763
IMAGE 4.16-4: SAB 1C ULTEM PRODUCTION APPLICATION EXAMPLES 764
IMAGE 4.17-1: PRODUCTION PROCESS OF AUTOMOTIVE WIRE TO FORMBOARD 768
IMAGE 4.17-2: INSTRUMENT PANEL WIRING HARNESS 770
IMAGE 4.17-3: ALUMINUM STRANDED WIRE 774
IMAGE 4.17-4: SUMITOMO ELECTRIC'S ALUMINUM ELECTRICAL WIRING FOR TOYOTA RACTIS 775
IMAGE 4.17-5: DELPHI ALUMINUM CAP ABLE TERMINALS 775
IMAGE 4.17-6: ALUMINUM CONNECTORS, CONVENTIONAL (LEFT) AND NEW ALUMINUM (RIGHT) 776
IMAGE 4.17-7: TERMINAL ANTI-CORROSION TREATMENTS 777
IMAGE 4.17-8: ALUMINUM STRANDED WIRE-SEALANT 777
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 25
IMAGE 4.17-9: ALUMINUM STRANDED WIRE-CRIMPING 778
IMAGE 4.17-10: ALUMINUM STRANDED WIRE-CURING PROCESS 778
IMAGE 4.17-11: ALUMINUM STRANDED WIRE 779
IMAGE 4.17-12: LAB VERSION OF LEIKO ALUMINUM POWER PLUG 779
IMAGE 4.17-13: ALUMINUM STRANDED WIRE 780
IMAGE 4.17-14: FLAT WIRE IN DOOR (LEFT) AND HEADLINER (RIGHT) APPLICATIONS 782
IMAGE 4.18-1 :FMVSS 208 35 FLAT FRONTAL CRASH TEST SETUP 801
IMAGE 4.18-2: INSTRUMENTATION-LEFT FRONT SPINDLE ACCELEROMETER 942
IMAGE 7.2-1: FRONT RAIL ASSEMBLY 991
IMAGE 7.2-2: MID RAIL ASSEMBLY 991
IMAGE 7.2-3: REAR RAIL ASSEMBLY 992
IMAGE 7.2-4: FRONT SHOCK TOWER ASSEMBLY 992
IMAGE 7.2-5: CROSS MEMBERS ASSEMBLY 993
IMAGE 7.2-6: CROSS MEMBERS ASSEMBLY 993
IMAGE 7.2-7: CABIN ASSEMBLY 994
IMAGE 7.2-8: CARGO Box ASSEMBLY 994
IMAGE 7.2-9: WELD DATA FROM SCANNING PROCESS 995
List of Tables
TABLE 1.2-1: PUBLISHED PASSENGER VEHICLE MASS REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS STUDIES 46
TABLE 2.3-1: MASS OF BASELINE BODY AND FRAME COMPONENTS AND ASSEMBLIES 80
TABLE 2.3-2: CAE LOADCASES OVERVIEW 88
TABLE 2.3-3: MODEL PARTS AND ELEMENTS SUMMARY 91
TABLE 2.3-4: CONTENTS OF EDAG CAE BASELINE MODEL 117
TABLE 2.3-5: HSS ANDAHSS SUBSYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 131
TABLE 2.3-6: MATERIAL GRADES VARIATIONS 140
TABLE 2.3-7: OPTIMIZATION OBJECTIVE, RESPONSE, AND CONSTRAINTS 142
TABLE 2.3-8: STRATEGY ANALYSIS 147
TABLE 2.4-1: UNIVERSAL CASE STUDY ASSUMPTION UTILIZED IN THE MASS REDUCTION ANALYSIS 155
TABLE 2.4-2: STANDARD MARK-UP RATES APPLIED TO TIER 1 AND TIER 2/3 SUPPLIERS BASED ON SIZE AND
COMPLEXITY RATINGS 170
TABLE 2.4-3: COST MODEL GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 193
TABLE 2.4-4: STAMPING PRESS LINE GENERAL PROCESS PARAMETERS 198
TABLE 2.4-5: MANUFACTURING PROCESSES AND OPERATIONS SEQUENCE 199
TABLE 3.1-1: SYSTEM/SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY 203
TABLE 3.1-2: VEHICLE LEVEL COST MODEL ANALYSIS TEMPLATES (CMAT): BASELINE 206
TABLE 3.1-3: VEHICLE LEVEL COST MODEL ANALYSIS TEMPLATES (CMAT): MASS-REDUCED 207
TABLE 3.1-4: VEHICLE LEVEL COST MODEL ANALYSIS TEMPLATES (CMAT): DIFFERENTIAL 208
TABLE 3.2-1: ENGINE SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 215
TABLE 3.2-2: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM MASS AND COST REDUCTION SUMMARY 218
TABLE 3.2-3: BODY SYSTEM GROUP -B-MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 220
TABLE 3.2-4: BODY SYSTEM GROUP -C-MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 221
TABLE 3.2-5: BODY GROUP-D-MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 222
TABLE 3.2-6: SUSPENSION SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 223
TABLE 3.2-7:DRIVELINE SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 226
TABLE 3.2-8: BRAKE SYSTEM MASS PRODUCTION SUMMARY 228
TABLE 3.2-9: EXHAUST SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 232
TABLE 3.2-10: FUEL SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 234
TABLE 3.2-11: STEERING SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 235
TABLE 3.2-12: CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 237
TABLE 3.2-13: INFORMATION, GAGE, AND WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 239
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 26
TABLE 3.2-14: ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 240
TABLE 3.2-15: LIGHTING SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 241
TABLE 3.2-16: ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 242
TABLE 3.2-17: BODY GROUP -A- SYSTEM / FRAME & MOUNTING SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION SUMMARY 244
TABLE 4.1-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR ENGINE SYSTEM 249
TABLE 4.1-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ENGINE SYSTEM 251
TABLE 4.1-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND BRACKETS
SUBSYSTEM 252
TABLE 4.1-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND
BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM 257
TABLE 4. -5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM 257
TABLE 4. -6: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ENGINE FRAMES, MOUNTING, AND BRACKETS SUBSYSTEM
259
TABLE 4. -7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 260
TABLE 4. -8: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 263
TABLE 4. -9: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CRANK DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 264
TABLE 4. -10: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR CRANKDRIVE SUBSYSTEM 268
TABLE 4. -11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM 269
TABLE 4. -12: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CYLINDERBLOCK SUBSYSTEM .271
TABLE 4. -13: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 273
TABLE 4. -14: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR CYLINDER BLOCK SUBSYSTEM 276
TABLE 4. -15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 277
TABLE 4. -16: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM ...279
TABLE 4. -17: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 279
TABLE 4. -18: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR CYLINDER HEAD SUBSYSTEM 281
TABLE 4. -19: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM 282
TABLE 4. -20: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM 285
TABLE 4. -21: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM 291
TABLE 4. -22: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR VALVETRAIN SUBSYSTEM 293
TABLE 4. -23: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 294
TABLE 4. -24: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 297
TABLE 4. -25: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 297
TABLE 4. -26: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR TIMING DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 299
TABLE 4. -27: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACCESSORY DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 299
TABLE 4. -28: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR ACCESSORY DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 301
TABLE 4. -29: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ACCESSORY DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 303
TABLE 4. -30: MECHANICAL PROPERTIES-PHENOLIC vs. ZYTELHTN 304
TABLE 4. -31: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR ACCESSORY DRIVE SUBSYSTEM 305
TABLE 4. -32: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM 306
TABLE 4. -33: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM 308
TABLE 4. -34: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM 309
TABLE 4. -3 5 :PA66GF20 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES COMPARISON-GLASS BUBBLES 310
TABLE 4. -36: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR AIR INTAKE SUBSYSTEM 312
TABLE 4. -37: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FUEL INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM 313
TABLE 4. -38: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM 315
TABLE 4. -39: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM 317
TABLE 4. -40: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM 318
TABLE 4. -41: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM 321
TABLE 4. -42: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM 321
TABLE 4. -43: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM 324
TABLE 4. -44: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM 324
TABLE 4. -45: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR LUBRICATION SUBSYSTEM 327
TABLE 4. -46: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 328
TABLE 4. -47: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 331
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 27
TABLE 4.1-48: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 332
TABLE 4.1-49: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR COOLING SUBSYSTEM 335
TABLE 4.1-50: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ENGINE ELECTRONIC, AND
ELECTRICAL SUBSYSTEM 336
TABLE 4.1-51: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC
SUBSYSTEM 337
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
TABLE 4.
-52: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ENGINE MANAGEMENT, ELECTRONIC SUBSYSTEM 338
-53: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR BREATHER SUBSYSTEM 339
-54: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM 340
-55: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM 341
-56: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM 342
-57: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR ACCESSORY SUBSYSTEM 343
-58: DOWNSIZED ENGINE POWER REQUIREMENT CALCULATION 344
-59: SILVERADO ENGINE DOWNSIZING MASS SAVINGS BY COMPONENT AND TOTAL 345
-60: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ENGINE SYSTEM SECONDARY MASS SAVINGS 346
TABLE 4.2-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 349
TABLE 4.2-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 350
TABLE 4.2-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXTERNAL COMPONENTS 351
TABLE 4.2-4: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR CASS SUBSYSTEM 352
TABLE 4.2-5: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR TRANSMISSION CASE
SUB ASSEMBLY 354
TABLE 4.2-6: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL CASE SUBSYSTEM 354
TABLE 4.2-7: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT ESTIMATES FOR CASE SUBSYSTEM 355
TABLE 4.2-8: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM 356
TABLE 4.2-9: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR GEAR TRAIN SUBASSEMBLY
357
TABLE 4.2-10: GEAR MATERIAL DENSITY, COST, AND WEIGHT REDUCTION 358
TABLE 4.2-11: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR GEAR TRAIN SUBSYSTEM 360
TABLE 4.2-12: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR CASE SUBSYSTEM 361
TABLE 4.2-13: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR INTERNAL CLUTCH 362
TABLE 4.2-14: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION IDEAS CONSIDERED FOR INTERNAL CLUTCH SUBSYSTEM 363
TABLE 4.2-15: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR INTERNAL CLUTCH SUBSYSTEM 364
TABLE 4.2-16: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT ESTIMATES FOR INTERNAL CLUTCH 367
TABLE 4.2-17: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SUBSYSTEM 368
TABLE 4.2-18: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE LAUNCH CLUTCH SYSTEM 369
TABLE 4.2-19: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SYSTEM 372
TABLE 4.2-20: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT ESTIMATES FOR LAUNCH CLUTCH SYSTEM 373
TABLE 4.2-21: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR OIL PUMP AND FILTER SUBSYSTEM 374
TABLE 4.2-22: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE OIL PUMP AND FILTER SUBSYSTEM
TABLE 4.2-23: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR OIL PUMP AND FILTER SUBSYSTEM 375
TABLE 4.2-24: PRELIMINARY SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR THE OIL PUMP AND
FILTER SYSTEM 377
TABLE 4.2-25: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR MECHANICAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM 378
TABLE 4.2-26: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE MECHANICAL CONTROL
SUBSYSTEM 379
TABLE 4.2-27: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR MECHANICAL CONTROL SUBSYSTEM 379
TABLE 4.2-28: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR MECHANICAL CONTROLS
SUBSYSTEM 380
TABLE 4.2-29: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ELECTRICAL CONTROLS 381
TABLE 4.2-30: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR PARKING MECHANISM SUBSYSTEM 382
TABLE 4.2-31: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE PARKING MECHANISM SUBSYSTEM
o oo
383
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 28
TABLE 4.2-32: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR PARKING MECHANISM SUBSYSTEM
384
TABLE 4.2-33: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR PARKING MECHANISM SUBSYSTEM
385
TABLE 4.2-34: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR MISCELLANEOUS SUBSYSTEM 385
TABLE 4.2-35: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ELECTRIC MOTOR AND CONTROLS 386
TABLE 4.2-36: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR DRIVER OPERATED EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM
387
TABLE 4.2-37: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE TRANSFER CASE
SUBSYSTEM 389
TABLE 4.2-38: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR TRANSFER CASE SUBSYSTEM 390
TABLE 4.2-39: SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT ESTIMATES FOR TRANSFER CASE SUBSYSTEM... 391
TABLE 4.2-40: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR DRIVER OPERATED EXTERNAL CONTROLS SUBSYSTEM
TABLE 4.2-41: CALCULATED MATERIAL CONTENT BETWEEN THE BASE BOM AND THE COMPOUNDED BOM 393
TABLE 4.3-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP-B- 395
TABLE 4.3-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP-B- 396
TABLE 4.3-3: SUB-SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR INTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM 397
TABLE 4.3-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INTERIOR TRIM AND
ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM 405
TABLE 4.3-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE INTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM 406
TABLE 4.3-6: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR INTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION
SUBSYSTEM 407
TABLE 4.3-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SOUND AND HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM (BODY) 408
TABLE 4.3-8: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SEALING SUBSYSTEM 409
TABLE 4.3-9: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE SEALING SUBSYSTEM .411
TABLE 4.3-10: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE SEALING SUBSYSTEM 413
TABLE 4.3-11: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SEALING SUBSYSTEM 413
TABLE 4.3-12: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM 414
TABLE 4.3-13: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM422
TABLE 4.3-14: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM 423
TABLE 4.3-15: CAST MAGNESIUM PRODUCTS BY MERIDIAN 427
TABLE 4.3-16: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE SEATING SUBSYSTEM 435
TABLE 4.3-17: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE SUBSYSTEM .436
TABLE 4.3-18: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL
SUBSYSTEM 442
TABLE 4.3-19: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE
SUBSYSTEM 443
TABLE 4.3-20: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE INSTRUMENT PANEL AND CONSOLE SUBSYSTEM 444
TABLE 4.3-21: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE SUBSYSTEM ...445
TABLE 4.3-22: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE OCCUPANT
RESTRAINING DEVICE SUBSYSTEM 453
TABLE 4.3-23: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE
SUBSYSTEM 454
TABLE 4.3-24: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE OCCUPANT RESTRAINING DEVICE SUBSYSTEM 455
TABLE 4.3-25: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP-B- 455
TABLE 4.4-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR BODY SYSTEM GROUP-C- 457
TABLE 4.4-2: MASS REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT FOR SYSTEM GROUP-C- 457
TABLE 4.4-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM ...458
TABLE 4.4-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND
ORNAMENTATION SUBSYSTEM 461
TABLE 4.4-5: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION
SUBSYSTEM 462
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 29
TABLE 4.4-6: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACTS FOR THE EXTERIOR TRIM AND ORNAMENTATION
SUBSYSTEM 462
TABLE 4.4-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR REAR VIEW MIRRORS SUBSYSTEM 463
TABLE 4.4-8: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRRORS
SUBSYSTEM 465
TABLE 4.4-9: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRRORS SUBSYSTEM.. 465
TABLE 4.4-10: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT CONCEPTS FOR THE REAR VIEW MIRROR
SUBSYSTEM 466
TABLE 4.4-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 466
TABLE 4.4-12: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT END MODULE
SUBSYSTEM 468
TABLE 4.4-13: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM.469
TABLE 4.4-14: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE FRONT END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 469
TABLE 4.4-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE REAR END MODULE SUBSYSTEM 470
TABLE 4.4-16: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR END MODULE
SUBSYSTEM 471
TABLE 4.4-17: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE REAR END MODULE SUBSYSTEM...472
TABLE 4.4-18: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT CONCEPTS ESTIMATES FOR THE REAR END MODULE
SUBSYSTEM 472
TABLE 4.4-19: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT CONCEPTS ESTIMATES FOR THE BODY GROUP -C-
SYSTEM 473
TABLE 4.5-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE BODY SYSTEM GROUP-D- 474
TABLE 4.5-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE BODY SYSTEM GROUP-D- 475
TABLE 4.5-3: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM FOR GLAZING SUBSYSTEM 476
TABLE 4.5-4: GLAZING SUBSUBSYSTEM SUMMARY 477
TABLE 4.5-5: GORILLA® GLASS MASS REDUCTION OPPORTUNITY (LAMINATED) 485
TABLE 4.5-6: GLAZING TECHNOLOGY MASS REDUCTION OPPORTUNITY 485
TABLE 4.5-7: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR GLAZING SUBSYSTEM 486
TABLE 4.5-8: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR GLAZING SUBSYSTEM 487
TABLE 4.5-9: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE GLAZING SUBSYSTEM 488
TABLE 4.5-10: MASS BREAKDOWN SUBSYSTEM FOR HANDLES, LOCKS, LATCHES AND MECHANISMS SUBSYSTEM .488
TABLE 4.5-11: MASS BREAKDOWN FOR WIPERS AND WASHERS SUBSYSTEM 489
TABLE 4.5-12: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR WIPERS AND WASHERS SUBSYSTEM 489
TABLE 4.5-13: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE WIPERS AND WASHERS
SUBSYSTEM 492
TABLE 4.5-14: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS SELECTED FOR THE WIPERS AND WASHERS SUBSYSTEM
492
TABLE 4.5-15: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE WIPERS AND WASHERS SUBSYSTEM ..493
TABLE 4.5-16: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE BODY SYSTEM GROUP-D- 493
TABLE 4.6-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE SUSPENSION SYSTEM 495
TABLE 4.6-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SUSPENSION SYSTEM 496
TABLE 4.6-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM 498
TABLE 4.6-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT SUSPENSION
SUBSYSTEM 511
TABLE 4.6-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED FRONT SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS .514
TABLE 4.6-6: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR SUSPENSION
SUBSYSTEM 535
TABLE 4.6-7: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS...537
TABLE 4.6-8: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE REAR SUSPENSION SUBSYSTEM 543
TABLE 4.6-9: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM 545
TABLE 4.6-10: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT
STRUT/SHOCK/DAMPER SUB-SUBSYSTEM 549
TABLE 4.6-11: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM 550
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 30
TABLE 4.6-12: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE SHOCK ABSORBER SUBSYSTEM (FRONT
STRUT/DAMPER ASSEMBLY SUB-SUBSYSTEM) 552
TABLE 4.6-13: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM 554
TABLE 4.6-14: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE WHEELS AND TIRES
SUBSYSTEM 560
TABLE 4.6-15: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS
561
TABLE 4.6-16: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE WHEELS AND TIRES SUBSYSTEM 566
TABLE 4.6-17: ALLOWABLE SECONDARY MASS REDUCTION CALCULATION 567
TABLE 4.6-18: CHEVROLET SILVERADO SUSPENSION COMPOUNDED MASS SAVINGS BY COMPONENT 568
TABLE 4.6-19: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR SUSPENSION SYSTEM SECONDARY MASS SAVINGS 568
TABLE 4.7-1: BASELINE DRIVELINE SYSTEM 570
TABLE 4.7-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT TABLE FOR DRIVELINE SYSTEM 571
TABLE 4.7-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR DRIVESHAFT SUBSYSTEM 572
TABLE 4.7-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE DRIVELINE SUBSYSTEM
574
TABLE 4.7-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DRIVESHAFT SUBSYSTEM 574
TABLE 4.7-6: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR DRIVESHAFT SUBSYSTEM 574
TABLE 4.7-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR REAR DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 575
TABLE 4.7-8: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 576
TABLE 4.7-9: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR REAR DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 576
TABLE 4.7-10: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR REAR DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 579
TABLE 4.7-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 580
TABLE 4.7-12: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 580
TABLE 4.7-13: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 581
TABLE 4.7-14: MASS REDUCTION AND COST FOR FRONT DRIVE HOUSED AXLE SUBSYSTEM 583
TABLE 4.7-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFTS SUBSYSTEM 583
TABLE 4.7-16: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFT SUBSYSTEM 584
TABLE 4.7-17: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FRONT DRIVE HALF-SHAFT SUBSYSTEM 584
TABLE 4.7-18: DRIVELINE SYSTEM MASS-REDUCTION & COST IMPACT 586
TABLE 4.7-19: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT SUMMARY 587
TABLE 4.8-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE BRAKE SYSTEM 589
TABLE 4.8-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE BRAKE SYSTEM 590
TABLE 4.8-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM.. . 592
TABLE 4.8-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED - FRONT ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD
SUBSYSTEM 600
TABLE 4.8-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED FRONT ROTOR / DRUM AND SHIELD
SUBSYSTEM ANALYSIS 602
TABLE 4.8-6: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE FRONT ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 611
TABLE 4.8-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 613
TABLE 4.8-8: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE REAR ROTOR / DRUM AND
SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 622
TABLE 4.8-9: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 623
TABLE 4.8-10: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE REAR ROTOR/DRUM AND SHIELD SUBSYSTEM 629
TABLE 4.8-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM ..630
TABLE 4.8-12: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND
ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM 636
TABLE 4.8-13: MASS REDUCTION IDEA SELECTED FOR THE DETAILED PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM
ANALYSIS 636
TABLE 4.8-14: MASS REDUCTIONS AND COST IMPACT FOR THE PARKING BRAKE AND ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM 640
TABLE 4.8-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM 641
TABLE 4.8-16: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION
SUBSYSTEM 647
TABLE 4.8-17: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM 648
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 31
TABLE 4.8-18: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE BRAKE ACTUATION SUBSYSTEM 652
TABLE 4.8-19: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE POWERBRAKE (FOR HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM ...653
TABLE 4.8-20: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE POWER BRAKE
SUBSYSTEM (FOR HYDRAULIC) 662
TABLE 4.8-21: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAILED POWER BRAKE (FOR HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM
ANALYSIS 663
TABLE 4.8-22: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE POWERBRAKE (HYDRAULIC) SUBSYSTEM 669
TABLE 4.8-23: ALLOWABLE SECONDARY MASS REDUCTION CALCULATION 670
TABLE 4.8-24: CHEVROLET SILVERADO BRAKE SYSTEM COMPOUNDED MASS SAVINGS BY COMPONENT 670
TABLE 4.8-25: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR BRAKE SYSTEM SECONDARY MASS SAVINGS 671
TABLE 4.9-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR EXHAUST SYSTEM 673
TABLE 4.9-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM 674
TABLE 4.9-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR ACOUSTICAL CONTROL COMPONENTS SUBSYSTEM 674
TABLE 4.9-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM 685
TABLE 4.9-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR EXHAUST SYSTEM 686
TABLE 4.9-6: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ACOUSTICAL CONTROL COMPONENTS
SUBSYSTEM 686
TABLE 4.9-7: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS AND SECONDARY REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR
EXHAUST SYSTEM 687
TABLE 4.10-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR FUEL SYSTEM 689
TABLE 4.10-2: CALCULATED MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FUEL SYSTEM 690
TABLE 4.10-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR FUEL TANK AND LINES SUBSYSTEM 691
TABLE 4.10-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FUEL TANK AND LINES
SUBSYSTEM 695
TABLE 4.10-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR FUEL SYSTEM ANALYSIS 696
TABLE 4.10-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR FUEL TANK AND LINES
SUBSYSTEM 698
TABLE 4.10-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE FUEL VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 700
TABLE 4.10-8: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FUEL VAPOR
MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 702
TABLE 4.10-9: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE FUEL VAPOR MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 702
TABLE 4.10-10: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE FUEL VAPOR
MANAGEMENT SUBSYSTEM 704
TABLE 4.10-11: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS AND SECONDARY REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR
FUEL SYSTEM 705
TABLE 4.11-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR STEERING SYSTEM 707
TABLE 4.11-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR STEERING SYSTEM 708
TABLE 4.11-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR STEERING GEAR SUBSYSTEM 710
TABLE 4.11-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING GEAR
SUBSYSTEM 711
TABLE 4.11-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE STEERING GEAR SUBSYSTEM 712
TABLE 4.11-6: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR STEERING GEAR SUB-
SUBSYSTEM 713
TABLE 4.11-7: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE POWER STEERING SUBSYSTEM 713
TABLE 4.11-8: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING PUMP
SUBSYSTEM 714
TABLE 4.11-9: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE POWER STEERING SUBSYSTEM 715
TABLE 4.11-10: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR POWER STEERING PUMP
SUB-SUBSYSTEM 715
TABLE 4.11-11: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE POWER STEERING EQUIPMENT SUBSYSTEM 716
TABLE 4.11-12: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING EQUIPMENT
SUBSYSTEM 717
TABLE 4.11-13: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE POWER STEERING EQUIPMENT SUBSYSTEM 718
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 32
TABLE 4.11-14: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR POWER STEERING
EQUIPMENT SUBSYSTEM 718
TABLE 4.11-15: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE STEERING COLUMN ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM 719
TABLE 4.11-16: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE STEERING SYSTEM
SUBSYSTEM 721
TABLE 4.11-17: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE STEERING COLUMN SUBSYSTEM 721
TABLE 4.11-18: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR THE STEERING EQUIPMENT
SUBSYSTEM 723
TABLE 4.12-1: BASELINE FOR CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 725
TABLE 4.12-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 725
TABLE 4.12-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE AIR HANDLING / BODY VENTILATION SUBSYSTEM
COMPONENTS SUB SUBSYSTEM 727
TABLE 4.12-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS CONSIDERED FOR THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 732
TABLE 4.12-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 732
TABLE 4.12-6: SYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM 733
TABLE 4.13-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR INFO, GAGE AND WARNING DEVICE SYSTEM 735
TABLE 4.13-2: PRELIMINARY MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE INFO, GAGE, AND WARNING DEVICE
SYSTEM 735
TABLE 4.13-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEMS 737
TABLE 4.13-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE INFO, GAGE AND
WARNING SYSTEM 738
TABLE 4.13-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR THE INFO, GAGE AND WARNING SYSTEM 739
TABLE 4.13-6: CALCULATED SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT RESULTS FOR THE INFO, GAGE AND
WARNING SYSTEM 741
TABLE 4.14-1: ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 743
TABLE 4.14-2: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 744
TABLE 4.14-3: SERVICE BATTERY SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN 745
TABLE 4.14-4: SUMMARY OF MASS-REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE ELECTRICAL POWER
SUPPLY SYSTEM 755
TABLE 4.14-5: MASS-REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY
SYSTEM 755
TABLE 4.14-6: MASS-REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR THE ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM 756
TABLE 4.15-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR IN-VEHICLE ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEM 758
TABLE 4.16-1: BASELINE SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN FOR THE LIGHTING SYSTEM 760
TABLE 4.16-2: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE LIGHTING SYSTEM 761
TABLE 4.16-3: FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM BREAKDOWN 762
TABLE 4.16-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE FRONT LIGHTING
SUBSYSTEM 765
TABLE 4.16-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR DETAIL ANALYSIS OF THE FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM . .765
TABLE 4.16-6: MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMP ACT FOR THE FRONT LIGHTING SUBSYSTEM 766
TABLE 4.17-1: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 768
TABLE 4.17-2: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUBSYSTEM FOR ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 769
TABLE 4.17-3: MASS BREAKDOWN BY SUB-SUBSYSTEM FOR THE ELECTRICAL WIRING AND CIRCUIT PROTECTION
SUBSYSTEM 771
TABLE 4.17-4: SUMMARY OF MASS REDUCTION CONCEPTS INITIALLY CONSIDERED FOR THE ELECTRICAL WIRING AND
CIRCUIT PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM 773
TABLE 4.17-5: MASS REDUCTION IDEAS SELECTED FOR ELECTRICAL WIRING AND CIRCUIT PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM
785
TABLE 4.17-6: SUB-SUBSYSTEM MASS REDUCTION AND COST IMPACT FOR ELECTRICAL WIRING AND CIRCUIT
PROTECTION SUBSYSTEM 786
TABLE 4.18-1: MASS OF BASELINE BODY AND FRAME COMPONENTS AND ASSEMBLIES 789
TABLE 4.18-2: FRAME NVH MODEL CORRELATION COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA 798
TABLE 4.18-3: CABIN NVH MODEL CORRELATION COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA 799
TABLE 4.18-4: CARGO Box NVH MODEL RESULTS 799
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 33
TABLE 4.18-5: EOF NVH MODEL CORRELATION COMPARISON WITH TEST DATA 800
TABLE 4.18-6: PULSE AND DYNAMIC CRUSH MEASUREMENTS 809
TABLE 4.18-7: COMPARTMENT DASH INTRUSION MEASUREMENTS 809
TABLE 4.18-8: BASELINE, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS AT 1200L FOR FMVSS 214 815
TABLE 4.18-9: BASELINE, RELATIVE INTRUSIONS AT OL FOR SIDE POLE IMPACT 822
TABLE 4.18-10: IfflS FRONTAL PULSE AND DYNAMIC CRUSH 829
TABLE 4.18-1 l:IfflS FRONTAL COMPARTMENT DASH INTRUSION 829
TABLE 4.18-12: SIDE STRUCTURE INTRUSION WITH SURVIVAL SPACE RATING 834
TABLE 4.18-13: RELATIVE INTRUSIONS 835
TABLE 4.18-14: REAR IMP ACT STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE 841
TABLE 4.18-15: REAR IMP ACT STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE 842
TABLE 4.18-16: ROOF STRENGTH SUMMARY OF BASELINE MODEL 847
TABLE 4.18-17: FRONT DOOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS BASELINE 852
TABLE 4.18-18: REAR DOOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS BASELINE 855
TABLE 4.18-19: HOOD PERFORMANCE RESULTS BASELINE 859
TABLE 4.18-20: TAILGATE PERFORMANCE RESULTS BASELINE 862
TABLE 4.18-21: OPTIMIZED WEIGHTS 874
TABLE 4.18-22: FINAL WEIGHT SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED VEHICLE 875
TABLE 4.18-23: NVH RESULTS SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED FRAME MODEL 876
TABLE 4.18-24: NVH RESULTS SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED CABIN MODEL 877
TABLE 4.18-25: NVH RESULTS SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED CARGO Box MODEL 877
TABLE 4.18-26: NVH RESULTS SUMMARY FOR OPTIMIZED EOF MODEL 877
TABLE 4.18-27: PULSE AND DYNAMIC CRUSH 882
TABLE 4.18-28: DASH INTRUSION COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 882
TABLE 4.18-29: DASH INTRUSION COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 887
TABLE 4.18-30: DASH INTRUSION COMPARISON BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED 888
TABLE 4.18-31: BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL - RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE AT 1200L FOR
FMVSS 214 SIDE IMPACT 892
TABLE 4.18-32: BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL - RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE AT 1200L FOR IIHS
SIDE IMPACT 895
TABLE 4.18-33: BASELINE vs. OPTIMIZED MODEL - RELATIVE INTRUSIONS OF SIDE STRUCTURE @OL FOR POLE SIDE
IMPACT 901
TABLE 4.18-34: REAR IMP ACT STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON 907
TABLE 4.18-35: REAR IMP ACT STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE COMPARISON 912
TABLE 4.18-36: FRONT DOOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS OPTIMIZED 914
TABLE 4.18-37: REAR DOOR PERFORMANCE RESULTS OPTIMIZED 916
TABLE 4.18-38: HOOD PERFORMANCE RESULTS OPTIMIZED 918
TABLE 4.18-39: TAILGATE PERFORMANCE RESULTS OPTIMIZED 919
TABLE 4.18-40: FRONT BUMPER IMPACT PERFORMANCE BASELINE 921
TABLE 4.18-41: FRONT BUMPER IMPACT PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZED 921
TABLE 4.18-42: REAR BUMPER IMP ACT PERFORMANCE BASELINE 922
TABLE 4.18-43: REAR BUMPER IMP ACT PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZED 922
TABLE 4.18-44: FRONT SUSPENSION HARD POINTS 925
TABLE 4.18-45: REAR SUSPENSION HARD POINTS 925
TABLE 4.18-46: MASS AND INERTIA BASELINE MODEL 926
TABLE 4.18-47: K&C TEST SUMMARY BASELINE MODEL 926
TABLE 4.18-48: MASS, INERTIA AND CG TARGETS FOR BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 928
TABLE 4.18-49: OCCUPANT AND CARGO POSITIONS 929
TABLE 4.18-50: STATIC CHARACTERISTICS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 931
TABLE 4.18-51: CONSTANT RADIUS CHARACTERISTICS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 932
TABLE 4.18-52: UNDERSTEER OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 934
TABLE 4.18-53 :J-TURN TIRE LOADS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 934
TABLE 4.18-54: FREQUENCY RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 936
TABLE 4.18-55: STATIC STABILITY FACTOR CHARACTERISTICS OF BASELINE AND OPTIMIZED MODELS 937
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 34
TABLE 4.18-56: ASSEMBLIES WITH ALUMINUM PARTS FOR COST ESTIMATION 947
TABLE 4.18-57: MANUFACTURING COST IMPACT OF OPTIMIZED ALUMINUM VEHICLE WITH HSS/ALUMINUM FRAME
948
TABLE 4.18-58: ASSEMBLY COST IMPACT OF OPTIMIZED ALUMINUM VEHICLE WITH HSS/ALUMINUM FRAME 949
TABLE 4.18-59: VEHICLE SECONDARY MASS SUMMARY-BODY AND FRAME SYSTEMS 950
TABLE 4.18-60: FMVSS 208 FRONTAL IMP ACT-RESULTS 953
TABLE 5.1-1: VEHICLE MASS REDUCTION AND COST COMPARISON OF THREE VEHICLE SOLUTION ALTERNATIVES 955
TABLE 5.3-1: MASS AND COST SUMMARY FOR HSS INTENSIVE VEHICLE 958
TABLE 5.3-2: WEIGHT AND COST IMPACT OF ALUMINUM INTENSIVE ITERATION 959
TABLE 7.1-1: VEHICLE SYSTEM CMATs 968
TABLE 7.1-2: ENGINE SYSTEM CMATs 971
TABLE 7.1-3: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CMATs 973
TABLE 7.1-4: BODY SYSTEM-A-CMATs 975
TABLE 7.1-5: BODY SYSTEM-B-CMATs 976
TABLE 7.1-6: BODY SYSTEM-C-CMATs 977
TABLE 7.1-7: BODY SYSTEM-D-CMATs 978
TABLE 7.1-8: SUSPENSION SYSTEM CMATs 979
TABLE 7.1-9:DRIVELINE SYSTEM CMATs 980
TABLE 7.1-10: BRAKES SYSTEM CMATs 981
TABLE 7.1-11: FRAME AND MOUNTING SYSTEM CMATs 982
TABLE 7.1-12: EXHAUST SYSTEM CMATs 983
TABLE 7.1-13: FUEL SYSTEM CMATs 984
TABLE 7.1-14: STEERING SYSTEM CMATs 985
TABLE 7.1-15: CLIMATE CONTROL SYSTEM CMATs 986
TABLE 7.1-16: INFO, GAGE, AND WARNING SYSTEM CMATs 987
TABLE 7.1-17: ELECTRICAL POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM CMATs 988
TABLE 7.1-18: LIGHTING SYSTEM CMATs 989
TABLE 7.1-19: ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION AND ELECTRONIC CONTROL SYSTEM CMATs 990
TABLE 7.2-1: TABLE OF COMMON ENGINEERING PROPERTIES[] 997
TABLE 7.2-2: MATERIAL CURVES OF STRESS vs. STRAIN (ALUMINUM) 999
TABLE 7.2-3: PART PROCESS DATA FOR COST ESTIMATION 1008
TABLE 7.2-4: MATERIAL PRICE 1009
TABLE 7.2-5: ASSUMPTIONS FOR EQUIPMENT, BUILDING AND OVERHEAD COST 1010
TABLE7.2-6: ASSUMPTIONS FOR MANUFACTURING ENERGY, MAINTENANCE AND LABOR COST 1010
TABLE 7.2-7: ASSUMPTIONS FOR MANUFACTURING LABOR COST 1011
TABLE 7.2-8: ASSUMPTIONS FOR MATERIAL COST OF ASSEMBLING 1011
TABLE 7.2-9: ASSUMPTIONS FOR LABOR AND EQUIPMENT COST OF ASSEMBLING 1012
TABLE 7.2-10: GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR ASSEMBLY COST 1012
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 35
Executive Summary
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted FEV to conduct
an analysis of the potential for reducing the mass of a light-duty pickup truck in the 2020
to 2025 timeframe. The goal of this study was to evaluate the incremental costs of mass
reduction levels that are feasible within the given timeframe, without sacrificing utility,
performance, or safety. To the extent that cost-effective mass reduction can be achieved,
techniques like those described in this report may be employed by manufacturers to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy.
To support this project, FEV subcontracted with Munro and Associates, Inc.® and EDAG,
Inc. Both companies previously assisted FEV on the 2012 Midsize CUV report[1].
A 2011 Chevrolet Silverado Crew Cab 4x4 vehicle[2] was chosen to represent the pickup
truck market in North America due to its high annual production volume, and level of
technology that is representative of the current market. Selection of the Silverado also
enabled incorporation of the modeling of a 2007 Silverado that was completed for a study
of advanced plastics and composites technologies by the National Crash Analysis Center
(NCAC) at George Washington University, WTH Consulting LLC, and University of
Dayton Research Institute for the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration
(NHTSA).[3]
Light duty pickup trucks are designed to meet a broad range of requirements, providing
particular utility and performance that are much different from most passenger vehicles.
Consumers expect power and ruggedness to satisfy payload and towing requirements, in
addition to comfort, ride and handling that approach the performance of passenger cars.
These two extremes drive unique design considerations which may both limit the amount
of mass reduction achievable in the future, and increase the cost. This analysis includes
only those mass reduction ideas which are not expected to degrade the overall function,
performance, or safety of the vehicle under any of the customer usage profiles.
Design, material, and manufacturing processes determined likely to be available for the
2020-2025 model year time frame were considered in the mass reduction technology
analysis. The critical boundary conditions assumed when assessing the various mass
reduction technologies included the following:
1 Environmental Protection Agency, "Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Midsize Crossover
Utility Vehicle," EPA-420-R-12-026, August 2012 (http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/ 420rl2026.pdf)
2 Silverado LT (crew cab) 4x4, 5.3L V8, 6-Speed Automatic Transmission , Vehicle Curb Weight (CW) as
purchased 2,454 kg (5,410 Ib) , Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) 3,182 kg (7,000 Ib), and Gross Combined Vehicle
Weight (GCVW) 6,818 kg (15,000 Ib)
3 "Investigation of Opportunities for Light-Weighting Vehicles Using Advanced Plastics and Composites", National
Crash analysis Center, the George Washington University, WTH consulting LLC, University of Dayton Research
Institute submitted to NHTSA, DTFH61-09-D-0001, August 6 2012
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 36
1. No degradation in function, performance (including payload and towing
capacities), or safety from the baseline vehicle.
2. Capable of being mass-produced in the 2020-2025 timeframe (defined as 450,000
units per year).
3. The maximum increase in the direct manufacturing cost of the vehicle should not
exceed 10% ($2,430)[4], although individual components may exceed a 10%
increase in cost.
4. No change in the type or architecture of the powertrain or any other vehicle system
is permitted to gain additional mass-savings, (e.g., turbo charging to enable
downsizing of a naturally aspirated internal combustion engine.)
The tools and methodologies utilized in the analysis include those employed in the 2012
Midsize CUVreport. In addition, new methodologies are used to evaluate closures
performance as well as to address the unique characteristics and requirements of full-size
pickups, including durability, vehicle dynamics, and bed and tailgate performance. The
analysis methodology is summarized in the following five steps.
Step 1; Baseline Vehicle Fingerprinting
This analysis began with the teardown and benchmarking of a 2011 Silverado vehicle to
establish a baseline for analysis. Key attributes were recorded for each component,
including mass, size, and material type. As a starting point, the computer-aided
engineered (CAE) data for a 2007 Silverado vehicle model developed by the NCAC at
the George Washington University was utilized. Differences between the provided 2007
CAE models and the actual 2011 Silverado teardown vehicle hardware were evaluated
and selective updates made. The development of the baseline model was supported by
comparing a number of criteria to the actual vehicle. Analysis of weight, NVH (noise,
vibration, and harshness), Crash and Safety (NHTSA data), Durability, Bumper impact
performance, and Vehicle Dynamics were studied. The vehicle components were grouped
into 19 vehicle systems.
4 Manufacturing Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of Vehicle $36,400 US Funds. Estimate OEM vehicle
manufacturing cost equals MSRP divided by the Retail Price Equivalent (RPE) ($36,400 MSRP II.5 RPE =
$24,300). Therefore, 10% of OEM vehicle manufacturing cost equals $2,430. ($24,300 * 10%)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 37
Step 2; Component Level Idea Generation and Binning
Next, the team conducted a series of idea generation activities to produce mass reduction
ideas for the various components in each of the 19 vehicle systems evaluated. Ideas were
gathered from a variety of sources including competitive benchmark data, automotive
part suppliers, raw material suppliers, published technical papers and journals, and mass
reduction subject matter experts both within and outside of the core team. Ideas were
graded in a multi-phase selection process considering factors such as function and
performance degradation risk, manufacturing feasibility risk, and cost effectiveness in
terms of weight savings per change in direct manufacturing cost.
Step 3; Mass Reduction and Cost Optimization Process
Individual component mass reduction ideas were assembled in different combinations at
the assembly, subsystem, and system levels to create different value propositions. The
various combinations of ideas were then placed into an optimization matrix with each
unique combination of ideas placed into one of five possible cost groups based on the
preliminary estimated cost per kilogram for the forecasted mass reduction. The baseline
CAE model underwent a lightweight design optimization processes using the HEEDS
MDO (Multi-disciplinary Organization) optimization tool in which the mass of the body-
in-white (BIW), closures and bumpers were reduced. This task is done in an iterative
process with the CAE process in Step 4.
Step 4; Selection of Vehicle Mass Reduction Solution
Upon completion of the matrix, the team reviewed and selected the best mass reduction
ideas at the subsystem and system levels, with the goal of achieving the greatest possible
vehicle mass reduction at the lowest direct manufacturing cost. The combination of the
selected ideas for the trim, powertrain, and chassis components were used together with
the primary body and frame results to create a primary vehicle solution. The
mathematically predicted results from the HEEDS MDO model were reanalyzed to
confirm the design for the primary solution met the targets. Steps 3 and 4 were iterative
for the CAE model. The final design concept for the BIW/closures/bumpers is chosen.
Step 5: Detailed Mass Reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis
Once the final solutions for the optimized mass reduced vehicle were selected for all
vehicle components, the team began the detailed mass reduction and cost analysis effort.
The following items were conducted in this step:
i. Additional work was completed as necessary to ensure the estimated amount of
mass reduction was dependable, and achievable without any degradation of
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 38
function or performance. The depth of this analysis ranged from simply
normalizing existing reference vehicle components for differences in size and
loading, to detailed analytical calculations.
a. Secondary Mass Savings: After estimating mass reduction levels of trim,
chassis, and powertrain components using the above steps, and before
considering any secondary mass savings and light-weighting of the body
structure (i.e., cabin, closures and box) and frame, the team felt confident a
minimum 20% mass reduction could be achieved with secondary mass
savings. Based on the 20% minimum prediction, the team revaluated the
applicable vehicle systems (e.g., engine, transmission, suspension, brakes,
fuel, etc.) for additional mass reduction and cost savings. This approach
was somewhat conservative as any additional mass reduction achieved
above the 20% value did not take advantage of any further secondary mass-
savings.
b. The final mass-reduced trim, chassis, and powertrain system weights
(including secondary mass-savings) were updated in the various vehicle
level CAE models (Executive Table 1) for final iterative runs. Final design
updates were made to body structure and frame components to ensure CAE
evaluations met the requirements as compared to those achieved by the
baseline models. Comprehensive CAE efforts were judiciously employed
for the redesign and development of safety critical systems such as the
body-in-white (BIW) and frame and mounting, since these systems play a
significant role in occupant protection during front, side, and rear
collisions.
ii. Detailed cost models were assembled to accurately assess the incremental direct
manufacturing cost impact of the proposed mass reduction measures. The models
are activity-based cost models, and represent the actual manufacturing operations
and processes used to produce the components. Key manufacturing cost factors
(e.g., material, labor, manufacturing overhead, mark-up, tooling) are tracked at the
component, subsystem and system levels.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 39
Executive Table 1: CAE Models and Load Cases used to Validate Mass Reduction Concepts
System
I
•z.
Crash/Safety
>,
•*—*
15
TO
Q
Vehicle
Dynamics
Frame
Cabin
Cargo Box
Body On
Frame
Full Vehicle
Frame
Doors
Hood
Tailgate
Full Vehicle
Load case
Static Bending
Static Torsion
Static Bending
Static Torsion
Static Bending
Static Torsion
Static Bending
Static Torsion
FMVSS 208 - 35 MPH Flat Frontal Crash
(UN NCAP)
IIHS - 40 mph ODB Frontal Crash
FMVSS 214 - 38.5 MPH MDB Side Impact
(US SINCAP)
IIHS - 31 MPH MDB Side Impact
FMVSS 214-20 MPH, 5th Percentile Pole
Side Impact
FMVSS 301 - 50 MPH MDB Rear Impact
FMVSS 261 a -Roof Crush
FMVSS 581 - Bumper Impact
Fatigue
Frame Rigidity
Beltline Compression
Beltline Expansion
Torsion
Sag
Oil Canning
Bending
Torsion
Oil Canning
Torsion
Oil Canning
Static Bending
Static Torsion
Static Bending
Static Torsion
Measure
Global Bending Stiffness
Global Torsion Stiffness
Global Bending Stiffness
Global Torsion Stiffness
Global Bending Stiffness
Global Torsion Stiffness
Global Bending Stiffness
Global Torsion Stiffness
Pulse
Crush
Time-To-Zero Velocity
Dash Intrusion
Pulse
Crush
Time-To-Zero Velocity
Dash Intrusion
B-Pillar Velocity
Side Structures Intrusion
B-Pillar Velocity
B-Pillar Intrusions
Survival Space
Exterior Crush
B-Pillar Velocity
B-Pillar Intrusions
Structures Intrusions
Under Structural Zone Deformation
Door Operability
Fuel Tank Damage
Roof Strength to Weight Ratio
Front End Deformation
Component Life Cycle
Stiffness
Stiffness
Stiffness
Twist Stiffness
Vertical Deformation
Outer Panel Deformation
Stiffness
Twist Stiffness
Outer Panel Deformation
Twist Stiffness
Outer Panel Deformation
Understeer Gradient
Cornering Compliance
Roll Gradient
Tire Load
Steering Response Phase Lag
Steering Response Gain
Track Width/(2 x CG Height)
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 40
A summary of the results for mass reduced and cost impact are shown in Executive
Table 2Error! Reference source not found.. For each vehicle system evaluated, the
starting mass, final mass, percent system mass reduction, and percent vehicle mass
reduction are provided along with the Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost
(NIDMC) and tooling impact. The net mass reduction achieved was 560.9 kg (or 22.9%
vehicle mass reduction) at a cost increase of $2,074 per vehicle, or an average cost of
$3.70 per kg. The costs shown are net incremental direct manufacturing costs not
inclusive of certain OEM markups. In addition these costs are considered mature, high
volume, mass-production costs.
Tooling impact was calculated to be a decrease of $0.01 per kg at the mass reduction
point of 22.9% for a total of $3.69 per kg increase. The tooling impact is the estimated
difference in tooling costs between the baseline (i.e., production stock version of the 1500
Series Silverado) and mass reduced version. A simple means for defining tooling is
everything which directly touches the part during manufacturing (i.e., dies, molds,
welding tips, cutting tools, fixtures, gauges, etc.) Tooling does not include manufacturing
capital equipment such as injection mold machines, die casting machines, stamping
presses, conveyor lines and welding equipment.
This study does not include a comprehensive, full vehicle, NVH evaluation. Therefore
the overall percentage weight loss is reduced in order to account for the aspects of mass
reduction which would require additional countermeasures for NVH. This could include
additional hood insulation, body-in-white mastic, weight counterbalances, etc. As a
result, an NVH countermeasure allowance of 50 kg is removed from the mass savings at
a cost estimate of $3.00 kg. So overall, the mass reduced is 20.8% at $4.35 per kg (also
$4.35 per kg with tooling).
Executive Table 3 provides a summary of the additional mass reduction associated with
secondary mass savings (SMS) for the applicable vehicle systems. The body structure
and frame and mounting system analyses were only evaluated with consideration to
secondary mass savingsError! Reference source not found.. For the eight systems
valuated with and without secondary mass savings, an additional 83.9 kg were saved (or
3.4% of the baseline vehicle mass). The cost savings associated with the secondary mass
savings equaled $68.74, translating to an average $0.82 per kg ($68.74/83.9 kg).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 41
Executive Table 2: Mass Reduction and Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost (NIDMC)
Impact for Each Vehicle System Evaluated
3
Is
' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
tn
5T
3
O
jFs
"01
'02
03A
03B
03 C
03D
' 04
"05
*06
"07
"09
'10
'11
"12
'13
'14
'15
"17
'18
"oo
Description
:. ,' -Up Truck
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System Group -A- ( Body Sheetmetal)
Body System Group -B- (Body Interior)
Body System Group -C- (Body Exterior Trim)
Body System Group -D- (Glazng & Body fv'ecnatronics)
Suspension System
Driveline System
Brake System
Frame and Mounting System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
Steering System
Climate Control System
Information, Gage and Warning Device System
Electrical Power Supply System
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Lighting System
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
Fluids and Miscellaneous Coating Materials
a. Analysis Totals Without NVH Counter Measures — •
b. Vehicle NVH Counter Measures (Mass & Cost ) ->
c. Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures — >
Mass Reduction Impact by Vehicle System
(Includes Secondary Mass Savings)
Base
Mass
"kg"
2399
145.3
574.7
247.0
40.5
50.9
301.2
183.8
101.0
267.6
38.4
26.3
325
20.3
1.6
21.1
22
9-6
33.6
116.8
2454.4
0.0
2454.4
Mass
Reduction
31.8
39.4
207.1
34.0
2.1
4.5
105.4
20.4
45.8
23.7
6.9
7.3
8.5
1.9
0.2
128
0.0
0.4
8.5
0.0
560.9
-50.0
510.9
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
T (2)
-92.83
-96.57
-1194.86
-127.23
2.73
2.30
-154.90
38.01
-148.92
-54.42
-13.69
11.92
-147.46
14.71
0.66
-172.73
0-00
-2-00
61-44
0.00
-2073.82
-150.00
-2223.82
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
NIDMC
"$/kg" (2)
-2.92
-2.45
-5.77
-3.74
1.28
0.51
-1.47
1.86
-3.25
-2.30
-1.97
1.62
-17.44
7.59
2.66
-13.49
0-00
-5-18
7.26
000
-3.70
n/a
-4.35
(Increase)
Cosy
Kilogram
NIDMC +
Tooling
"$/kg" (2)
-2.63
-2.47
-5.77
-3.78
1.28
0.51
-1.48
1.89
-3.35
-2.30
-1.97
1.77
-17.45
7.59
2.97
-13.44
0.00
-5.18
7.27
0.00
-3.69
n/a
-4.35
(Increase)
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
13.3%
27.1%
36.0%
13.8%
5.3%
8.9%
35.0%
11.1%
45.4%
8.9%
18.1%
27.9%
26.0%
9.5%
15.7%
60,6%
0.0%
4.0%
25.2%
0.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
1.3%
1.6%
8.4%
1.4%
0.1%
0.2%
4.3%
0.8%
1.9%
1.0%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
22.9%
n/a
20.8%
(1) Negative value (i.e., -X.XX ) represents an increase in mass
(2) Negative value (i.e : -$X.XX) represents an increase in cost
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 42
Executive Table 3: Secondary Mass-Savings Impact for Applicable Vehicle Systems
'
15
1
2
3
7
9
10
11
12
U)
H-
5T
3
0
DOS
01
02
03A
04
06
07
09
10
Description
eries Chevrolet Silve
Engine System
Transmission System
Body System Group -
A- ( Body Sheetmetal)
Suspension System
Brake System
Frame and Mounting
System
Exhaust System
Fuel System
a. Analysis Totals Without NVH
Counter Measures — >
Secondary Mass Savings (SMS) Impact by Vehicle System
Base
Mass
"kg"
rado Pick-
239.9
145.3
5747
301.2
101 0
2676
38.4
26.3
1694.5
Mass
Reduction
with SMS
lip Truck
31.8
39.4
207.1
105.4
45.8
23.7
6.9
73
467.5
Mass
Reduction
without
SMS
23.8
34.2
1907
83.1
43.9
00
6.3
16
383.6
Incremental
Mass
Reduction
from SMS
8.0
5.2
164
22.4
20
237
0.6
57
83.9
Cost
Impact
NIDMC with
SMS
T (2)
-92.83
-96.57
-1194.86
-154.90
-148.92
-54.42
-13.69
11 92
-1744.26
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
without
SMS
T (2)
-114.63
-128.20
-1125 15
-260.84
-167.87
ooo
-19.54
3.25
-1813.00
(Increase)
Savings
from SMS
"$" (2)
21.81
31.64
-6971
105.94
18.95
-5442
5.85
8.67
68.74
Cost/
Kilogram
NIDMC with
SMS
"$/kg" (2)
-2.92
-2.45
-5.77
-1.47
-3.25
-2.30
-1.97
1 62
-3.73
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
NIDMC
without
SMS
"$/kg" (2)
-4.82
-3.75
-590
-3.14
-383
0.00
-3.08
202
-4.73
(Increase)
Cost
Savings/
Kilogram
NIDMC
from SMS
"$/kg" (2)
1.90
1.30
013
1.67
0.58
-230
1.11
-0.40
0.82
(1) Negative value (i.e., -X.XX ) represents an increase in mass
'(2) Negative value (i.e., -$X.XX) represents an increase in cost
In addition to developing the net incremental direct manufacturing cost (NIDMC) for a
single mass-reduced light-duty pickup truck solution, FEV also developed two cost
curves (cost per kg versus percent vehicle mass reduction) to estimate the cost impact at
alternative percent vehicle mass reduction points (Executive Figure 1). Starting at the
greatest mass reduction value, the components' mass-saving and cost impact were
progressively summed to establish a non-compounded cost curve (i.e., a curve without
secondary mass savings). By linearly interpolating the level of compounding, established
from the primary vehicle solution (i.e., Aluminum Intensive Body and HSS Intensive
Frame), and adding the benefit to the non-compounded vehicle mass reductions, a cost
curve with compounding was also developed.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 43
f
1 56
tj
i
5
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 44
1. Introduction and Program Objectives
1.1 Analysis Background
In August 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the
final rule making to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve the fuel
economy of model years 2017 and beyond[5] light-duty vehicles. These regulations build
upon the first phase of standards for model years 2012 through 2016, so that in 2025 the
average industry fleet-wide level of emissions is projected to be 163 grams per mile of
carbon dioxide, which is equivalent to a CAFE value of 54.5[6] miles per gallon, if
achieved exclusively through fuel economy improvements. In response to these
regulations, manufacturers have begun to implement a wide range of advanced vehicle,
powertrain and driveline technologies such as turbocharging with engine downsizing,
direct injection, variable valve timing and lift, advanced transmissions, automated start-
stop systems, electric-hybridization, and aerodynamic improvements.
Another promising technology for reducing vehicle GHG emissions, and the focus of this
work, is reduction of vehicle weight. Mass reduction is a fundamental strategy for
reducing emissions because lighter vehicles require less energy to accelerate. Mass
reduction can be accomplished without compromising vehicle performance, interior
volume and utility by combining lightweight materials and innovative vehicle designs.
There are many examples of mass reduced designs currently in production today that use
lightweight materials such as high strength steels, aluminums, magnesium, composites,
engineering plastics and other materials (ATS, CTS, F150, Mustang, BMWiS, Audi A8,
Range Rover SUV, etc.). Mass reduction can also be cost effective, for as the vehicle
becomes lighter, the load requirements on many components are reduced, creating a
virtuous cycle whereby additional, or "secondary" mass reduction can be achieved by
redesigning those components. Appropriate light-weight vehicle designs can even result
in improvements in vehicle performance attributes where greater mass is detrimental,
such as handling and durability. Realizing the full potential of these benefits requires a
systems approach to design, due to the many inter-relationships between the various parts
on a vehicle. In particular, because the vehicle structure itself is often a good candidate
for mass reduction, the effects on crash safety and overall structural noise, vibration, and
5 EPA's regulation contains standards for 2017-2025. NHTSA is required by Congress to set CAFE standards only
five years at a time, but presents the non-final "augural" standards for 2022-2025 in their rulemaking in the interest
of aiding manufacturers in future product planning and of harmonization with EPA's greenhouse gas emission
standards. Final CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025 will be established by NHTSA in a future rulemaking, based
on the information available to the agency at that future time.
6 Label values are calculated by using the CAFE values in a derived 5 cycle calculation and weighting the resultant
city/highway values.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 45
harshness (NVH) must be evaluated to make sure that performance for the new design is
maintained.
A number of previous studies have demonstrated that by using a systems approach mass
reduction can be accomplished without compromising vehicle performance, interior
volume, or utility by combining lightweight materials and innovative vehicle design. A
listing of these most recent studies can be found in Table 1.2-1. As is the case with other
advanced technologies for reducing GHG emissions, mass reduction implementation may
depend on the particular vehicle segment (e.g., Small Car, Mid-Size Car, Full-Size Car,
Mid-Size Pickup, Full-Size Pickup), and some technologies may not be as beneficial, or
be entirely feasible for a given vehicle segment due to existing functional or performance
limitations. For example, the use of aluminum in the body structure may be achievable
for vehicles with unibody structures and the body of body on frame vehicles, however
has not yet proven feasible for the pickup truck ladder frame which is designed to tow
heavy loads (e.g., over 6,000 Ibs.).
Similarly the cost of implementing mass reduction may vary depending on the vehicle
type. The achieved benefit, in terms of emissions reductions, versus the implementation
cost is referred to here as the technology "value". The studies in Table 1.2-1 are
representative of the majority of recently published and publicly available mass reduction
and cost analysis studies that have been focused on mid-sized passenger cars and cross-
over utility vehicles (CUVs). This study was motivated by the recognition that for the
large number of vehicles in the full-sized pickup truck segment, customer usage profile
and expected duty cycle are significantly different from passenger cars. As a result,
simply scaling performance and costs from these studies to truck applications could result
in inaccurate estimates.
1.2 Analysis Objectives
The primary project objective was to determine the minimum cost per kilogram for
various levels of vehicle mass reduction of a light-duty pickup truck, up to and possibly
beyond 20%. A maximum 10% increase in total direct manufacturing cost limit was
placed as a soft constraint in order to focus the study on more realistic ideas for near-term
adoption. The selection criteria for the truck chosen for evaluation specified a mainstream
vehicle in terms of design and manufacturing, with a substantial market share in the
North American light-duty truck market. Selecting a high-volume, mainstream vehicle
increases the probability that ideas generated and their associated costs will be applicable
to other pickups trucks in the same market segment.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 46
Table 1.2-1: Published Passenger Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Studies
#
1
2
3
4
5
6
Study
Future Steel
^ T li ' 1 Dli 1
vemcie rnase i —
Report
An Assessment of
Mass Reduction
Opportunities for a
2017-2020 Model
Year Program
Future Steel
Vehicle Phase 2 -
Report
Light-Duty Vehicle
Mass Reduction and
Cost Analysis —
Midsize Crossover
Utility Vehicle
Evaluating the
Structure and
Crashworthiness of
a 2020 Model- Year,
Mass-Reduced
Crossover Vehicle
Using FEA
Modeling
Mass Reduction for
Light-Duty
Vehicles for Model
Years 2017-2025
Vehicle
Segment
Small and Midsize
D f^
rcissenger ^.ars
(Paper Study)t
2009 Toyota
Venza
Small and Midsize
Passenger Cars
(Paper Study)t
20 10 Toyota
Venza
2009 Toyota
Venza
2011 Honda
Accord
Prime Customer
WorldAuto Steel
The International
Council on Clean
Transportation
(ICCT)
WorldAuto Steel
US Environmental
Protection Agency
(EPA)
California Air
Resources Board
(ARE)
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Association
(NHTSA)
Prime
Contractor
EDAG, Inc.
Lotus
Engineering
EDAG, Inc.
FEV North
America Inc.
Lotus
Engineering
Electricore,
Inc.
Release
Date
May 2009
March
2010
April
2011
August
2012
August
2012
August
2012
Link
http://c3 15221 .r21 .cfl .rackcdn.com
/nTTDQl 87^ IzllFi Aft A 8 RH7H
45CC653A8977/FinalDownload/D
ownloadld-
35434A6571D52COD3512917F9A
290D45/OE091875-143D-4EA8-
B070-
45CC653A8977/FSV Phasel Engi
neeringStudvReport 05192009.pdf
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default
/files/publications
/Mass reduction final 2010.pdf
http://c3 15221 .r21 .cfl .rackcdn.com
/FSV-
EDAG Phase2 Engineering Repo
rt.pdf
http://www.epa.gOV/otaq/climate/d
ocuments/420rl2026.pdf
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/levp
rog/leviii/final arb phase2 report-
compressed. pdf
ftp://ftp.nhtsa.dot.gov/CAFE/20 17-
25_Final/8 11666.pdf
^A paper study was not based on a specific vehicle; rather, on new designs with performance attributes matching production
designs in similar vehicle segments.
The scope of work is summarized below along with high level boundary conditions for
the analysis. Additional details on the guiding boundary conditions utilized in the mass
reduction and costing analyses can be found in Chapter 2.
• Select a mainstream pickup truck, available in the 2011 calendar year, with significant
market share in North America. Trucks for consideration should include the Ford F150,
Dodge Ram 1500, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, and Nissan Titan
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 47
• Select mass reduction ideas that use advanced materials, designs, manufacturing and
assembly processes which will likely be available in the 2020-2025 timeframe
• Initially, components and assemblies in all vehicle systems should be assessed for
mass reduction. If the ratio of overall mass reduction relative to analysis workload is
small, vehicle systems can be discarded from the analysis.
• All direct mass reduction of components (e.g., design and/or material alternatives) as
well as mass reduction of components via mass compounding (also referred to as
secondary mass savings) 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.
• Select mass reduction ideas that are production feasible and provide the best value in
terms of fixed and variable costs (i.e., maximum direct manufacturing cost increase of
10%).
• Maintain (or improve) the function and performance of the production stock vehicle
systems in terms of safety, fuel economy, vehicle utility/performance (e.g., towing,
acceleration), NVH, durability, ergonomics, aesthetics, manufacturability, and
serviceability.
• Vehicle system/subsystem architecture changes are permitted when existing
technology is assumed to be obsolete in the 2017 and beyond timeframe. For example an
electronic power steering system replacing the conventional hydraulic system.
• Incorporating system/subsystem architecture changes are not permitted when the
replacement technology is potentially a long-term competitor to the baseline technology.
For example, replacing the automatic transmission with a dual clutch transmission or
replacing the V8 internal combustion engine (ICE) with a downsized V6 ICE with
turbocharging and gasoline direct injection. Although some of these alternative
technologies may offer a mass reduction, their primary benefit is associated with an
overall efficiency improvement. Alternative advanced technologies are considered in
separate calculations in EPA's rulemaking modeling.
• Utilize CAE tools as appropriate when comparing baseline vehicle functionalities to
the light-weighted design, such as for safety, NVH, powertrain performance, towing,
durability, etc.
• Provide comprehensive incremental cost calculations for the mass-reduced vehicle
relative to the production stock vehicle, including both detailed direct manufacturing
costs (i.e., material, labor and manufacturing overhead) and indirect costs (i.e., end-item
scrap, selling, general and administrative [SG&A], profit and engineer, design and testing
[ED&T]).
• Develop incremental tooling cost calculations for the mass-reduced vehicle relative to
the production stock vehicle.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 48
• The tools and processes to model direct manufacturing costs should be detailed and
representative of those used by OEMs and Suppliers in the automotive industry.
• Determine material utilization mix (e.g. steel, plastic, aluminum, magnesium) of
production stock vehicle with respect to mass-reduced vehicle.
1.3 Consideration of Commercial/Business Factors
As stated previously, the objective of mass reduction and cost analysis was to develop
affordable mass reduction ideas which could be adopted into a current conventional
pickup truck application. By selecting a mass-production mainstream vehicle in the
pickup truck market, the expectation was that many of the ideas generated in the analysis
would be universally applicable to similar vehicles in this market segment. The project
team recognizes that not all ideas will be suited for every supplier and OEM, including
the ideas generated based on the Silverado pickup truck for the Silverado pickup truck.
Although feasible from a design and manufacturing perspective, company-, industry-, or
business/commercial-related factors may result in an OEM choosing alternative mass
reduction technologies (or other vehicle technologies) from those selected in the analysis.
Automotive suppliers and OEMs are routinely making critical business-related decisions
aimed at maintaining competitiveness and profitability with current and future products
and technologies. Although many of the types of decisions companies are making are
universal in nature, the actual decisions and outcomes may differ significantly based on
several factors: global manufacturing presence, global market presence, competitive
landscape, existing long-term facility and labor contracts, working capital availability,
cost of money, existing business partnerships (material suppliers, component suppliers,
equipment suppliers, OEMs), existing company policies and culture, consumer market
intelligence, company polices on profitability and risk taking, regulatory requirement
conformance, and existing technology roadmaps all have an impact on what products and
technologies in which suppliers and OEMs will continue to invest.
To minimize the risk of not considering all potential mass reduction opportunities, the
team limited the number of business case-type constraints imposed in the analysis. In
doing so the team recognizes that different suppliers and OEMs may choose a
combination of mass reduction technologies that is different from those ideas selected in
this report. Through the process of collecting a wide range of mass reduction ideas
beyond those included in the primary vehicle solution, the team anticipates that other
combinations of ideas can be assembled offering comparable mass-savings. Some of
these alternative ideas are described in Sections 4 and 5.
The team also acknowledges that the business-related factors addressed prior can also
have significant impact on light-weighted component costs. The cost analysis portion of
the study relies on detailed and transparent cost models adhering to a set of detailed
project boundary conditions (e.g., average 450K units/year, mature market conditions,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 49
manufacturing in the US, 2012/2013 manufacturing costs/rates, etc.,). The purpose of the
cost analysis was not to evaluate what new mass reduction technologies would cost at
production inception, but rather to understand how competitive these new mass-reduced
component technologies could be in the long-term compared to their existing baseline
counterparts, evaluated under the same boundary conditions. If changes to the initial
boundary conditions are made (i.e., production volumes lowered, market maturity
assumptions modified, etc.), cost model updates would be required to address the
differences. Alternatively, learning factors could be applied to account for key cost
drivers such as production volumes, technology maturity, and market maturity. In this
analysis no attempt is made to understand what the cost of mass reduction would be
under alternative sets of boundary conditions.
The component costs calculated in this study are referred to as Net Incremental Direct
Manufacturing Costs (NIDMC) and do not include allowances for various OEM indirect
manufacturing costs (e.g., production tooling expenses, corporate overhead expenses,
research and development expenses, profit, etc.). These expenses are addressed through
the application of the EPA's Indirect Cost Multipliers (ICMs) and are outside the scope
of this analysis.
1.4 Consideration of Component Mass Reduction On Overall Vehicle
Performance
The introduction of any new vehicle technology 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 levels
and automotive parts supplier levels spend years developing components for vehicle-
specific applications 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 (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 limited. This does not imply that the
mass reduction ideas included here are not viable options, or that ideas were included in
the primary vehicle solution without some evidence or justification that the necessary
technologies could be implemented in the 2020-2025 model year timeframe.
Anticipating that there may be some necessary subsystem/system modifications to correct
vehicle performance-level degradation as a result of the negative synergistic impact of
component light-weighting, the team implemented a mass and cost counter measure: An
NVH counter-measure of 50 kilograms and cost of $150 were added back into the overall
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 50
vehicle solution. The 50 kilogram NVH countermeasure was based on feedback received
by the team on previous light-weighting projects. The $150 on-cost assessment assumed
a $3.00 per kilogram cost (50 kg x $3.00 per kg) founded on the team's historical NVH
countermeasure cost knowledge.
1.5 The Project Team
For the mass reduction and cost analysis project, FEV subcontracted with EDAG and
Munro & Associates to create a team with world-class capability, experience, efficiency,
and accuracy. As shown in Figure 1.5-1, 8 of 19 primary vehicle system/subsystems
make up over 85% of a light-duty pickup truck's mass. Out of the 85% vehicle mass,
approximately 24% is comprised of powertrain and driveline technology, and 35% is
body-in-white and frame and mounting technology. FEV is a technology leader in
powertrain and driveline systems, while EDAG is a leader in body-in-white and frame
and mounting technology. For remaining systems including suspension, brakes, and
interior components (e.g., seats, instrument panel, climate control), the FEV, EDAG and
Munro teams provided comprehensive engineering assessments in these areas, backed by
a network of industry subject matter experts, ensuring complete, reliable, and transparent
results.
I Bodv System, Group -A-, BIW
I Suspension System
l Frame and Mount ing System
I Body System, Group -B-. Interior
I Engine System
I Drive line System
I Transmission System
I Brake System
Figure 1.5-1: Percent Mass Contribution of Light-Duty Pickup Truck, 2011 Silverado
FEV, along with its partners, have previously worked together on a mass reduction and
cost analysis methodology, which was successfully employed on the EPA - 2012 Midsize
CUVreport (Report Name: Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis -
Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle). The report, detailing the methodology and findings,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 51
was published August 2012 and can be found through the following link
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420rl2026.pdf.
Following is a brief profile of the three companies that participated in the analysis:
FEV, Inc.
The FEV Group is an internationally recognized powertrain and vehicle engineering
company that supplies the global transportation industry. FEV offers a complete range of
engineering services, providing global support to customers in the design, analysis,
prototyping, powertrain and transmission development, as well as vehicle integration,
calibration and homologation for advanced internal combustion gasoline-, diesel-, and
alternative-fueled powertrains. FEV also designs, develops and prototypes advanced
vehicle/powertrain electronic control systems and hybrid-electric engine concepts that
address future emission and fuel economy standards.
FEV has significant experience in competitive vehicle benchmarking. FEV continues as
the competitive engine and vehicle benchmarking supplier for US CAR Engine
Benchmarking Group, and the USCAR Transmission Working Group. FEV's
benchmarking process is a systematic assessment and characterization of competitive
vehicles and powertrains, including detailed analysis, standardized measurements, and
standardized test boundary conditions. This allows FEV to accurately compare the
particular vehicle system of interest with similar products.
The production development group at FEV is responsible in mass reduction and cost
analysis projects of this kind. The core team is comprised of product and manufacturing
engineers with an average of 20-plus years in automotive design, manufacturing, and cost
engineering. Due to the vast complexity of components and technologies involved in a
vehicle, the core team leverages as much internal and external industry support to ensure
the mass reduction analysis is robust and defendable. This includes working with Tier 1
component suppliers as well as cutting edge material suppliers (e.g., advance high
strength steels, metal matrix composite materials, and carbon fiber composite materials).
The FEV Group employs a staff of over 3,800 highly skilled specialists at advanced
technical centers on three continents. FEV North America Inc. employs more than 450
personnel in its North American Technical Center in Auburn Hills, MI.
EDAG, Inc.
EDAG, Inc. is a U.S. independent engineering partner, developing ready-for-production
solutions to ensure the mobility of the future. Because of EDAG's holistic understanding
of vehicles and production plants, EDAG offers the fusion of product and production,
from development through to serial production, thus creating added value. EDAG's
principle of production-optimized solutions is its trademark and a major contribution to
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 52
the success of its customers. As an all-purpose engineering partner to the international
mobility industry, EDAG's vast portfolio includes the development of complete modules,
vehicles, and derivatives. Along with providing production-optimized solutions, EDAG,
Inc. also holds a prominent position in the fields of electric mobility and lightweight
construction. Its expertise and quality standards are found among numerous concepts,
concept cars, and technology carriers. This is complemented by further expertise of our
global parent company, EDAG Engineering GmbH, regarding model building, prototype
construction, and tool and body manufacturing. With their subsidiary FFT, EDAG also
provides expertise in the complete development of production plants and factory concepts
- from factory, process, and plant development to automation engineering and product
cost management. Worldwide, EDAG Engineering GmbH is present on four continents.
Munro & Associates, Inc.
Munro & Associates, Inc. is headquartered in Troy, Michigan, with offices in Europe,
Canada, and Japan. Munro is a world leader in application and methods of Lean Design®,
cost reduction, and quality improvement. Munro provides repeatable methods with
consistent metrics that expose, quantify, and predict production and lifecycle cost drivers
and risks, as early as the concept phase.
Munro's tools and methods focus on product design. Since the design of a product
determines most of a company's costs and rewards, Munro has developed specific tools
and standardized metrics to analyze and understand the cost ramifications for all aspects
of a design. Munro's Design Profit® accurately calculates total production costs,
including the costs of Quality, and even computes a sigma number. Design trade-offs can
be quickly analyzed to see the effects on "Total Accounted Costs." Munro's proven
methodologies ultimately build business cases that guide their customers to the areas that
show the highest returns on investment. Beyond acquisition, Munro also computes total
ownership cost, secondary market costs, and impact studies on weight and other key
metrics to appreciate end customer benefits against costs.
Munro & Associates' 20,000-square-foot Benchmarking Innovation Center (BIC) is
dedicated to reverse engineering and innovative technology transfer. With more than 25
years in business, Munro has developed a state of the art facility and process to get the
most out of benchmarking activities.
1.6 Structure of This Report
The report is structured in six different sections (including this, Section 1) with
Appendices. The sections as they respectfully breakdown include:
Section 2, Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Methodology, Tools and Boundary
Conditions: This section provides a detailed review of the methodologies and tools used
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 53
to generate, select, and validate mass reduction ideas. In addition, the costing modeling
methodology, tools and boundary conditions used to establish the direct manufacturing
cost differences between the production stock and mass-reduced components is
discussed.
Section 3, Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results Overview: This section provides
a vehicle-level overview of the calculated mass reduction and associated costs for each
vehicle system. In addition, vehicle system summaries highlighting the mass reduction
ideas chosen for major components within each vehicle system are provided. A table at
the beginning of each vehicle system summarizes the mass reduction and associated costs
at the assembly and subsystem levels.
Section 4, Mass Reduction and Cost Analyses - Vehicle Systems White Papers: The
vehicle systems whitepaper section provides an in-depth review of the mass reduction
ideas and developed costs for each vehicle system. In each system, an overview of the
production stock components and technologies is provided. This is followed by an
overview of industry trends and mass reduction ideas considered during the analysis.
Next, details are provided on the mass reduction ideas selected followed by supporting
data on the mass reduction and cost calculations (with and without secondary mass
savings). All vehicle system whitepaper sections are organized internally according to
subsystems. These subsystems are presented at the beginning of each vehicle system
whitepaper section.
Section 5, Supplementation Analysis: Additional weight-reduction possibilities
developed by the project team, but not implemented in the study, are discussed with
regard as to why they were not selected.
Section 6, Conclusions, Recommendations and Acknowledgements: The full report
summary of primary project objectives, the efforts extended, and the conclusions reached
with recommendations for future considerations and actions. Specific consideration is
expressed for the invited participants and partners in the study.
Appendix Section 7.1 System Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs):
Contains all vehicle system CMATs. The System CMATs provide a subsystem summary
of the Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Costs (NIDMCs) for the production stock
(Baseline Technology) and mass-reduced Silverado (New Technology). For each
subsystem, primary cost element breakdowns are provided (i.e., material, labor,
manufacturing overhead, mark-up).
Appendix Section 7.2 Body and Frame Supporting Data: Included here is vehicle scan
data, material testing and material models, load path analysis, and study assumptions.
Supplementing photos, tables, and graphs regarding the variety of tests and findings are
located in this section.
Glossary of Terms and Initials, Section 8: Definitions of terms, acronyms, and initials
used throughout the report.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 54
2. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Methodology, Tools and
Boundary Conditions
2.1 Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Methodology Overview
The mass reduction and cost analysis project methodology consisted of five general
process steps (Figure 2.1-1). These same general steps were followed for all 19 vehicle
systems. For study purposes, the 19 vehicle systems were categorized into two evaluation
groups labelled (1) Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim and (2) Body and Frame.
Stepl
Step 2
StepS
Step 4
StepS
Beta
Mass-
Reduction
Feasibility and
Cost Analysis
Figure 2.1-1: Key Steps in the Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Project
Figure 2.1-2 provides the net amount of component mass considered in each of the
evaluation groups. Total starting mass of components evaluated was 2337.5 kg [i.e., as
purchased vehicle starting mass (2,454 kg) minus miscellaneous items including fluids,
paint, mastic, etc. (116.8 kg)].
Vehicle Mass By Evaluation Group
Body and Frame
Evaluation
Group
842.3kg
Powertrain,
Chassis, and
Trim Evaluation
Group
1,495.2 kg
Figure 2.1-2 Production Stock 1500 Silverado Net Component Mass by Evaluation Group
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 55
The systems and subsystems included in each evaluation group, along with mass
contribution for each, are shown in Figure 2.1-3 (Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim) and
Figure 2.1-4 (Body and Frame). Note as shown in Figure 2.1-4 there were a few
components (e.g., tow provisions, isolators, liners and covers) which belong to the body
and frame vehicle systems, though were evaluated by FEV.
Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim Evaluation Group
300
Vo 200
I II.
=> a
E c
I
Q O —
3 _C
2 qj
U _
o E
ar
II
l
11
fa -fa
E
b
Figure 2.1-3: Key Systems in Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group
Body & Frame Evaluation Group
Frame & Body Structure Body Closure Pickup/Cargo Bumper Misc
Mounting Subsystem - Subsystem Box Subsystem Subsystem Components
Subsystem Cabin (FEV)
Figure 2.1-4: Key Systems and Subsystems Included in Body and Frame Evaluation Group
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 56
The Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim Evaluation Group consists of 17 vehicle systems. In
general, all seventeen systems were treated independently in terms of mass reduction
assessment and validation. This approach has some inherent shortcomings as the impact
of mass reduction at systems interfaces is neglected. A complete vehicle CAE analysis to
assess the system interactions in terms of vehicle performance attributes such as
handling, steering, braking, stiffness, and NVH is a significant undertaking and was
outside the scope of this analysis. Recognizing mass reduction countermeasures would
likely be required to refine mass reduction concepts and offset negative system
interactions, the team added 50 kilograms of mass back into the mass-reduced vehicle at
a cost of $150. The FEV and Munro team led the mass reduction and cost analyses for the
Powertrain, Chassis and Trim evaluation group.
The Body and Frame Evaluation Group consists of two vehicle systems, Body System
Group -A- (body-in-prime/body-in-white components, assemblies and subsystems) and
Frame System. The body and frame vehicle systems provide many functions with respect
to the overall vehicle performance. One major function is maintaining occupant safety
under varying vehicle crash conditions. A major concern with light-weighting is the
potential adverse impact it may have on vehicle crash performance and occupant safety.
To ensure the crash integrity of light-weighted vehicle concept was maintained relative to
the baseline vehicle, the body and frame systems incorporated substantially more CAE
modeling and validation than all remaining vehicle systems. Also, due to the synergistic
characteristics of the body and frame in terms of crash, NVH (noise, vibration, and
harshness), payload, towing, etc., it was judicious to evaluate these two systems together.
Closures were evaluated for stiffness, oil canning, and residual deformation. To address
the unique characteristics and requirements of full-size pickups, durability performance
was evaluated for the frame, and simulation of the full-vehicle dynamic performance was
performed. The EDAG team led the evaluation of the frame and body systems.
The primary process steps were the same for both evaluation groups. At a subtask level,
methods and tools employed for each evaluation group were customized to meet project
objectives. To clearly present the methodology, tools and analysis assumptions, the
remainder of Section 2 is subdivided into two sections: Section 2.2: Powertrain, Chassis
and Trim; and Section 2.3: Body and Frame.
2.2 Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Mass Reduction Evaluation Group -
Methodology Overview
Sections 2.2.1 - 2.2.5 provide details on the subtasks performed, and tools utilized, for
each of primary process steps identified previously in Figure 2.1-1. In the initial analysis
no mass-compounding/secondary mass-savings were assumed as part of the vehicle
system evaluations. To account for secondary mass reductions Step 5 was repeated for
those systems impact by overall vehicle mass reduction (i.e., Engine, Transmission,
Suspension, Brake, Exhaust and Fuel).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 57
2.2.1 Step 1: Baseline Vehicle Fingerprinting
Component
Information
Acquisition
Figure 2.2-1: Key Steps in Baseline Vehicle Fingerprinting
The process began with the purchase of the baseline vehicle, a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado.
Before vehicle disassembly, key vehicle measurements were taken, including the four
corner vehicle weight, vehicle ground clearance, and noted positions of key components
(e.g., engine, fuel tank, exhaust) as assembled in the vehicle relative to the center of the
front tires.
Following the vehicle measurements, a systematic, detailed vehicle disassembly process
was initiated. The vehicle disassembly 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) process mapping of part(s) to capture the part removal process (inverse-part assembly
process); 2) photographing of part as assembled and as removed from the vehicle; and 3)
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 Material (CBOM).
As part of the initial teardown process white-light scanning (WLS) was not conducted.
The starting point for the vehicle CAE model was an existing model of a 2007 Silverado
that was completed for a study of advanced plastics and composites technologies by the
National Crash Analysis Center (NCAC) at George Washington University, with
Consulting LLC, and University of Dayton Research Institute to NHTSA. The EDAG
team evaluated differences between the 2007 CAE model and actual 2011 purchased
baseline vehicle. Where differences existed, WLS was judiciously implemented to update
the 2007 CAE model to a 2011 version. Additional details on the methodology and
updates made can be found in Section 2.3, "Body and Frame Mass reduction Evaluation
Group - Methodology Overview."
After the vehicle was completely disassembled, major modules were further broken down
into respective system groups. For example, the components within the front suspension
module (e.g., brake rotors, control arms, differential, suspension struts, springs) were
removed from the module and grouped in their respective systems (Image 2.2-1). A
process similar to the vehicle disassembly process was followed to ensure applicable
information was captured (e.g., weight, geometric size, process map, photographs) and
recorded for each component. During this step, system CBOMs were created. All
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 58
components belonging to a system (e.g., engine, transmission, body, brakes, fuel) were
physically grouped together and captured together in the system CBOM.
Image 2.2-1: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado Front Suspension Module as Removed During the Teardown
Process
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
2.2.2 Step 2: Mass Reduction Idea Generation
Assembly
Teardown and
Component
Review
Reduction
Idea
Generation
Idea Ini
Down-
Selection
Process
(Score
V
on
is /
50)
Down-
Selection
Process ($/kg)
Categorization
of Selected
Ideas Based
on Value
($/kg)
Figure 2.2-2: Key steps in Mass Reduction Idea 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 Front Strut Assembly (Image 2.2-2) was fully
disassembled down to 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
Silverado front strut assembly were collected. At all teardown levels, the CBOMs were
updated, thereby tracking key component information (e.g., parts, quantities, weights).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 59
Image 2.2-2: Chevrolet Silverado Front Strut Assembly Disassembled
(Source: FEV, Inc. photos)
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 began with logging individual ideas
into the FEV Brainstorming Template (FBT). The FBT contained five major sections:
• Part 1: General Part Information Entry
• Part 2: Mass Reduction Idea Entry
• Part 3: Primary Idea Ranking and Down-Selection Assessment
• Part 4: Quantitative Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Estimation Entry
• Part 5: Final Ranking and Down-Selection Process Assessment
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 60
In this initial idea generation phase of the analysis, Parts 1 and 2 of the brainstorming
template are completed. As shown in Figure 2.2-3, 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 & Associates internal, EDAG internal, A2MAC1 purchased
subscription), and internal brainstorming storming sessions. In Section 4, "Mass
reduction and Cost Analysis - Vehicle System White Papers," a significant amount of
the details supporting the mass reduction ideas are captured (e.g., sources of information,
applications in production, manufacturing process details).
At this point, teams began reviewing the baseline design and the materials being used for
each component in their respective, individual systems. This was done to compare
systems with known technologies already available.
A significant number of the mass reduction ideas presented in this report are based on
implementation of "off-the-shelf technologies. These are technologies which are either
mature mass-produced technologies already implemented by several OEMs on multiple
vehicle platforms, or to a lesser degree new low-volume production technologies that
have been selectively released due to a low maturity level and/or incremental cost
increase. By selecting mass reduction ideas that 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.
In almost all cases, assumptions were required to take the mass reduction ideas from
surrogate components and transfer them to Chevrolet Silverado-specific components.
This included normalizing the surrogate parts sizes and weights to Chevrolet Silverado
specific parts, and when required, making high-level mass adjustments for considerations
to design and applications differences. No detailed calculations or CAE analysis was
initiated at this stage.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 61
Performance
Vehicle
Benchmark
Data
Published
OEM
Literature
Mass
Reduction
Technology
Raw Material
Supplier
Input
Creation and Categorization of Mass-
duction Ideas Applicable To The Silverado
Pick-p Truck
Mix Of Mass-Reduction Technologies
Considered
Promising Developed Incubator Stage
Technology (PDT) ^^^^^^^ Technology (1ST)
New Low Volume
Production Technology
(LVPT)
Mature Mass-Production
Technology (MMPT)
Figure 2.2-3: Sources of Information Used to Develop Mass Reduction Components
In addition to "off-the-shelf ideas, a brainstorming process was employed to explore a
broader range of mass reduction ideas. Participants were encouraged to focus on creating
many ideas and cautioned not to pre-judge anything, since even ideas that initially seem
outrageous can spawn new ideas that are more feasible. The critiquing process would
take place afterward, during the idea ranking process. Participants were also encouraged
to consider new design concepts that would allow for part elimination, particularly
fasteners and brackets. Oftentimes several independent ideas could be combined into a
single workable idea. Finally, the participants were encouraged to consider new
materials, including inspirations from outside the automotive industry.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 62
Many ideas generated often appear unconventional, but with additional engineering
analysis and research, the ideas are either eliminated from the list or take root and
become feasible. One such idea, from the Venza study, was an all-aluminum brake
booster. While the idea initially seemed far-fetched, Continental announced in March
2013 that it was offering an all-aluminum brake booster that "reduced weight and has a
shorter overall length."
Figure 2.2-3 shows the approximate mix of mass reduction ideas considered relative to
maturity status. The actual mix was very vehicle system dependent. Additional
information on the maturity of technologies considered for each system can be found in
Section 4.
Upon completion of the idea generation phase, the preliminary idea ranking and down-
selection process began. While evaluating the proposed ideas, the engineering team faced
two major concerns: First, whether the idea will perform to the vehicle's specifications.
The second concern is whether the cost will be prohibitive or not. In Part 3 of the
brainstorming template, the ideas were scored according to the cost, benefit, and risk of
implementation using a five 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 2.2-4, there were predefined scoring values for each parameter. The ratings for
each category were pre-weighted to account for variation in importance among
categories.
Numbering Part Name/Description
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
r 03
' 03
03
* 03
' 03
03
' 03
03
' 03
' 03
01
' 01
01
' 01
' 0
0
' 0
0
' 0
" 01
Subsystem
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
—
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Idea Description
Individual Rotor Ideas
Vent (slot) front rotors
Cross-Drill front rotors
Two piece Rotor - Al light-weight center (hat) with
Iron/Steel/CF outer surface (disc) w' T-nut
Change Material for Rotors -AL'MMC
Downsizing based on Rotor fins added to hat
Clearance drill holes in rotor top hat surface to
reduce wt
Drill holes in rotor hat perimeter
disc surfaces (5%)
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
Change Material for Rotors - Carbon Ceramic
Part 3: Primary Idea Down-Select Scoring Process
Manufacturing
Readiness Risk
"Possible for 2025
Other
Development'RSiD
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
3
Functionality Risk
(Drivability, Performance,
Crash)
"Will it work"
< 5 > Vehicle Minor Primary
Function Degrade
1
1
1
1
1
Change In Weight
< 2 > 10-20%
m™,'
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
Change In Piece Cost
Decrease
2
2
3
7
3
2
2
2
'
7
Figure 2.2-4: Primary Idea Down-Select Process Excerpt from FEV Brainstorming Template
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 63
Manufacturing Readiness Risk
The Manufacturing Readiness Risk is a numerical value ranging from low risk (1) for
ideas already used in the automotive industry at high production levels, to higher risk
ideas used at low production levels (3), to ideas still in development (5). The High
Production ideas are those components that can be found in high-production vehicles.
Components such as aluminum knuckles, aluminum control arms, and plastic fuel tanks
offer minimal risk in terms of manufacturability readiness. The Low Production ideas are
those components that can be found in low-production vehicles such as magnesium
transmission cases, aluminum body closures, composite leaf springs, etc. and therefore
have moderate implementation risk. The "still in development" ideas have no current
production examples to which to be compared and therefore carry the most risk in terms
of manufacturing readiness.
Functionality Risk
The Functionality Risk is a numerical value which assesses the potential functional
degradation of the mass-reduced part (e.g. crash, NVH, braking). The goal in the analysis
was not to have any primary functional degradation with mass reduction. A mass-reduced
part which was estimated to meet or exceed primary function scored a one ("1").
Conversely, if the mass reduction resulted in a notable functional degradation, it scored a
ten ("10").
The team felt it important not to discount items that may result in minor primary function
degradation in the initial scoring. The thought was that these ideas may have the potential
to overcome functional degradation concerns by making further component modifications
and/or systems changes. Providing a score of five ("5"), with all other categories scoring
favorably, would promote the idea to the next scoring round. If the scoring worked out
favorably in the next step, additional work would be performed to determine if any
further changes could be made to equalize primary functionality relative to the baseline.
The team also realized that some mass reduction initiatives may maintain primary
function, although may have actual or perceived ancillary/secondary degradation. For
example, as some assemblies or components within are made lighter, their tactile feel
changes, which may generate an initial perception of "cheapness" by the end consumer.
Types of components which fall into this group generally include driver interface
components such as door handles, console control knobs, interior trim panels, plastic
throttle pedals, and shifters. A lighter aluminum hood that has a different feel and audible
noise when closing may also generate a similar perception. In situations like these, if the
team felt an ancillary/secondary functional degradation was potentially possible (actual or
perceived), they scored the idea with a two ("2").
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 64
Mass Impact
Mass Impact is a numerical value based on expected percentage change in mass
comparing the redesigned mass to the baseline mass. There were four categories from
which the idea could be scored: "20%+ Mass Reduction," "10-20% Mass Reduction," "0-
10% Mass Reduction," or "Mass Increase."
Cost Impact
Cost was also taken into consideration when scoring an idea as to whether the new design
is less than, equal to, or greater than the baseline cost. The Cost Risk value is a weighted
number based on the expected percent of change in cost comparing the redesign cost to
the baseline cost. There were four categories from which the idea could be scored: "Same
or Less Cost," "0-10% Cost Increase," "10-20% Cost Increase," or "20%+ Cost
Increase."
Tooling Impact
Tooling Impact is a weighted number based on expected piece cost impact associated
with changing from the baseline component tooling to the redesigned component tooling.
There were three categories from which the idea could be scored. Either the idea was the
"Same Part Cost or Decreased Part Cost," "0-25% Part Cost Increase," or "25%+ Part
Cost Increase."
Idea Total Score
The Idea Total Score is derived by multiplying each of the five scoring parameter values
together. The resulting value is then used to determine which among the many ideas will
be advanced to the next level of review.
The range of values for each individual parameter was set considering the importance
relative to the other parameters. The final idea score 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 Silverado 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. The majority of the mass reduction ideas selected were conservative, thus
resulting in a score between 1 and 200. A score 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.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 65
Ideas that had an initial score of less than 50 were considered high probability mass
reduction ideas. For each of these ideas which made the first cut, the project team then
estimated the potential mass reduction and cost impact of each idea using an FEV
developed mass and cost calculator tool. This Excel-based calculator (Figure 2.2-5) was
created as a quick way to analyze basic baseline component data and return a baseline
component cost, redesigned component cost, and a redesigned component mass. While
the Idea Scoring Number helped sort-out ideas quickly based on the teams experience,
knowledge, and discretion, the mass and cost calculator took actual baseline component
data (i.e., component mass, material, load type, and manufacturing processes) and
evaluated it against the redesign component data to yield a cost/kg delta. This provided a
more objective measure of value (cost per kilogram) for those mass reduction ideas
meeting the initial score criteria. In addition the calculated data was used to monitor
cumulative mass reduction potential and the cumulative cost increase as individual ideas
were combined to create final mass reduction solutions.
BASE TECHNOLOGY
Material
Material $/kg
Material Content'Pc Price Ratio
Component Loading Application
Density (g/cmA3)
Part Mass (kg)
. .
Total Cost
Cast Iron (ASTMA-48)
1.32
in?
Blend
7.929
4.803
10.586
NEW TECHNOLOGY
Material
Material $/kg
Material ContenVPc Price Ratio
Component Loading Application
Density (g/cmA3)
Part Mass (kg)
Part Redesign Mass Delta
Part volume (cmA3)
volume Ratio (new/ok;
Material Cost'pc
Total Cost
Aluminum (2014-T6}
3.84
70%'
Blend
2.669
2.343
Q.OQtJ
557 c,
0.92
3.997
13.813
Mass (old-new)
Cost (old-new)
2.460
($3.23)
Approx Mfg Ratios:
(Mat'l to Burden/Labor Content)
Assembly, Automated -40%
Manual - 50%
Semi -Auto -60%
Bending, CNC - 50%
Fixed -60%
Casting, Die -70%
Sand -60%
Forging -65%
Heat Treat -35%
Machining, CNC - 75%
Dedicated -65%
Grinding - 70%
Honing/Lapping - 70%
Molding, Metal Injection - 60%
Plastic Injection - 50%
Powder Metal -45%
Figure 2.2-5: FEV Mass and Cost Calculator Example
The mass calculations within the calculator are based on mathematical formulas for
bending strength, bending stiffness, and blend (50%-50%). The user must enter the
baseline part material, baseline part mass, and the type of process used to manufacture the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 66
part (Material Content/Pc Price Ratio). The Material Content/Pc Price ratio is dependent
on the type of process used to manufacture the part, and is expressed as the proportion of
total piece price relative to material costs. For example, the manufacturing cost of a sand
casted part is approximately 60% material and 40% processing (calculations do not
include mark-up). The Mass & Cost Calculator has processing ratios for all the different
types of processes used, however, only a small subset is shown previously in Figure
2.2-5. Finally, the user must also enter the type of material being used for the redesigned
or "New Technology" component as well as the type of process (Material Content/Pc
Price Ratio) used to manufacture the redesign part.
The calculator also has an expandable database from which the mechanical properties of
the baseline and redesign materials are stored. The user must select the mechanical load
type (Component Loading Application) for which the part is subjected (Bending
Strength, Bending Stiffness, Blend). The calculator algorithms looks-up the baseline
material properties and compares those with the redesign material properties as well as
the mechanical load type and returns an estimated mass required to make the redesigned
component equal in performance to the baseline design.
The material database contains many of the common materials used in the automotive
industry, included up-to-date material costs. Once the calculator has determined the
redesign mass, it returns a cost estimate based on the material type, amount of material
and the type of process used to manufacture the part (i.e., die-casting, sand casting,
injection molding, etc.).
It should be re-emphasized that the Mass and Cost calculator only provides budgetary
estimates for initial comparison. During the final step in the project analysis (Step 5,
Detailed Mass reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis) higher fidelity mass and cost
calculations are performed on the final mass reduction ideas selected for each vehicle
system.
The mass reduction and cost calculations are added beside each relevant idea in the FEV
brainstorming matrix (Part 4 of the matrix). Using the calculated mass, calculated cost
impact, and Idea Total Score Number (Part 3 of FBT), cost-versus-mass and total score-
versus-mass calculations are made (Figure 2.2-6). The calculated values, found in Part 5
of the brainstorming template, are used in the final down-selection process when
comparing competing mass reduction ideas on a similar part.
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.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 67
Part Numbering Part Name/Description
vt
Subsystem
Sub-Subsystem
06
06
05
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Note:
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
' 03
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
' 01
Subsystem
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Front Rotor'Drum and Shield
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Idea Description
Individual Rotor Ideas
Vent (slot) front rotors
Cross-Drill front rotors
Two piece Rotor - Al light-weight center (hat) with
Iron/Steel/CF outer surface (disc) w^ T-nut
fasteners
Change Material for Rotors - Al'fvlMC
Downsizing based on Rotor fins added to hat
reduce wt
Drill holes in rotor hat perimeter
Chg from straight to directional vanes btwn rotor
disc surfaces i'5%i
Replace : " :: :- -:-- I'MAd database
Change Material for Rotors - Carbon Ceramic
Part 3:
Primary
Idea Down-
Select
Scorina
Idea Total
Score
Low Ranking
= mgh
Potential
Solution
High Ranking
Potential
Solution
6
6
12
42
18
12
18
36
1
42
Part 4: Estimate Weight and
Cost Impact on "Best Scored
ldea
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 68
IDEA GROUPING
•Five cost groups were established to group ideas based on their average
cost/kilogram weight save:
Level A: < $O.QO/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
LevelD:>$2.50to<$5.10
LevelX:>$5.10
• 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 2.2-7: Mass Reduction Idea Grouping/Binning Based on Mass Reduction Value
2.2.3 Step 3: Mass Reduction and Cost Optimization Process
Formulation of Formulation
Mass-Reduced of Mass-
Component Reduced
and Assembly / Susbsystem
Concepts / Concpets
Figure 2.2-8: Key steps in Mass Reduction and Cost Optimization Process
The next step in the process is to take the down-selected mass reduction ideas and
formulate feasible and economically viable mass-reduced component, assembly and
subsystem solutions. To organize the potential component/assembly and subsystem mass
reduction solutions, the same cost groups shown in Figure 2.2-7 are utilized. The end
objective is to provide a selection of subsystem mass reduction solutions, at varying
levels of cost (cost per kilogram), for each vehicle system. In the subsequent analysis step
(Step 4), Selection of a Vehicle Mass Reduction Solution, the various subsystems
solutions are evaluated against one another at the vehicle level to determine which
subsystems offer the best value in terms of creating a mass-reduced vehicle solution.
To help explain the optimization methodology, a brake system example will be used as
the reference system. The same process is employed for all vehicle systems. The starting
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 69
point is combining mass reduction ideas into various component and assembly mass-
reduced options. Shown in Figure 2.2-9, the front rotor has nine different ideas which
can be combined into several different combinations to create different mass-reduced
rotors with different cost impacts (cost per 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.
Mass-Reduction => Mass-Reduced Component/Assembly Options
(Example: Front Rotor)
Cost Group: A
Range
"$/Kg"
<$0
Ideaffl
Downsize based
on comperable
vehicle
Cost Group: B
Range
"$/Kg"
>$0.00-
< $1.00
Cost Group: C
Range
"$/Kg"
>$1.00-
<$2.50
ldea#2
Vent/Slot Rotor
ldea#3
Cross Drill Rotor
ldea#4
2-Piece Rotor
ldea#5
Change Rotor
Mtl to AL/MMC
ldea#6
Drill Clearance
HolesinTop Hat
Cost Group: D
Range
"$/Kg"
>$2.50-
<$5.10
Ideaftl
Downsize based
on comperable
vehicle
ldea#2
Vent/Slot Rotor
Idea #4
2-Piece Rotor
ldea#5
Change Rotor
Mtl to AL/MMC
ldea#6
Drill Clearance
HolesinTop Hat
ldea#7
Directional
Vanes
Idea #8
Drill Holesin Hat
Perimeter
Cost Group: X
Range
"$/Kg"
>$5.10
ldea#2
Vent/Slot Rotor
ldea#3
Cross Drill Rotor
ldea#4
2-Piece Rotor
ldea#6
Drill Clearance
HolesinTop Hat
ldea#7
Directional
Vanes
Idea #9
Change Rotor
Mtl to Carbon
Ce ra m i c
Figure 2.2-9: Component/Assembly Mass Reduction Optimization Process
Each team grouped as many individual ideas together as possible in order to obtain the
greatest mass savings while staying within the cost range for each cost group. The intent
is to try and have a component mass reduction solution for every cost group (A, B, C, D,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 70
X). Though having a solution for every cost group was dependent on the number of ideas
passed through following the initial idea generation and down selection process.
The next step is to combine component and assembly solutions into subsystem solutions.
Shown in Figure 2.2-10, the same methodology for combining mass reduction ideas into
component/assembly solutions is used for combining components/assemblies into brake
subsystems. In the case of the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem, three groupings
of components and assemblies created three different subsystem cost solutions. Various
component and assemblies solutions from cost groups A, B, and D were combined to
create a subsystem solution in cost groups A, B, and C. The process is repeated for the
remaining subsystems (e.g., Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem, Parking Brake and
Actuation Subsystem, Brake Actuation Subsystem, Power Brake Subsystem).
Subsystems
Front Rotor/
Drum & Shield
Rear Rotor/
Drum & Shield
Parking Brake &
Actuation
Brake Actuation
Power Brake
Mass-Reduction => Mass-Reduced Subsystem Options
(Example: Brake System)
Cost Group: A
Range <$o
"S/Kg" -50
/" "\
Rotor -A
Brake Shield-D
CaliperHousing-B
Pad Kit -A
Caliper Brkt-B
V J
Cost Group: B
Range >$0.00 - <
"S/Kg" $1.00
S N
Rotor- C
Brake Shield-D
Caliper Housing- B
Pad Kit -A
Caliper Brkl-8
V J
Cost Group: C
Range >$1.00 - <
"S/Kg" $2.50
/• "\
Rotor -D
Brake Shield-D
Ca M per Ho using -B
Pad Kit -A
Caliper Brkt-B
V j
/ N
Drum -A
Backing Plate- D
GuidePlate-A
Brake Shoes -A
Actuation Lever- D
Wheel Cylinder -D
V J
Park ing Brake Lever &
Frame -C
S^~ ™"""V
Accelerator Pedal - A
Brake Pedal Arm -B
Brake Pedal Pad - A
Brake Pedal Brkt-0
Brake Pedal Frame- C
V ^
Booster Shel Front -C
Booster Shel Rear - C
Piston, Actuator-C
Studs -MC to BM-D
Studs, Booster -D
Pivot Shaft -X
Backir«Plate(F)-C
Backir«Plate(R)-C
Backing PiateiSi-C
^ J
Cost Group: D
Range >$2.50 - <
"S/Kg" $5.10
/* N
Drum - D
Backing Plate- D
GuidePlate-A
Brake Shoes -A
Actuation Lever- D
WheelCylinder-D
V J
Cost Group: X
Range
••S/Kg" *»»
Figure 2.2-10: Subsystem Mass Reduction Optimization Process
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 71
2.2.4 Step 4: Selection of Vehicle Mass reduction Solution
As stated in Section 1, the primary project objective was to determine the minimum cost
per kilogram for light-weighting a light-duty pickup truck, at various levels of vehicle
mass reduction. To accomplish this objective consideration of the best value solutions
within a subsystem, and best value subsystems with the vehicle must be evaluated
simultaneously. A vehicle level subsystem matrix was used to capture all the derived
subsystem solutions. Although the subsystems are grouped by vehicle system, there
selection and integration into a vehicle level mass reduction solution were treated
independently unless subsystem interdependency existed (i.e., Subsystem 1 mass
reduction is impacted by Subsystem 2 mass reduction). In the analysis subsystem
dependencies were minimized by grouping interdependent components in the same
subsystem.
The process of arriving at the final vehicle mass solution was somewhat of an iterative
process. It started by first selecting all subsystems available in Cost Group A (mass
reduction at no additional costs or at a cost save). Next, all subsystems with a solution in
Cost Group B were evaluated. If subsystems with a solution in Cost Group B had no
existing Cost Group A solution, Cost Group B was automatically selected. If an existing
A solution existed, an assessment was made to either stay at Cost Group A (no cost or
cost savings with mass reduction) or move to the solution in Cost Group B, increasing the
amount of mass reduction contribution at the defined cost increase. The decision to move
from Cost Group A to Cost Group B was dependent on both the additional mass
reduction and cost premium within the subsystem, as well as what other subsystems
could offer in comparison relative to mass reduction and associated costs.
Upon completion of Cost Group B, a similar process was followed for evaluating the
mass reduction solutions in Cost Group C relative to solutions in Cost Group B (or Cost
Group A if no Cost Group B solutions existed). Subsequently mass reduction solutions in
Cost Group D were compared to solutions in Cost Group C (or B and A), and solutions in
Cost Group X were compared to solutions in Cost Group D (or, C, B and A). In the brake
system example in Figure 2.2-10, the green boxed combinations were selected as the
brake subsystem final solutions.
After a few iterations, a mass reduction of 287 kg (11.7% of baseline vehicle mass) was
achieved at a Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost (NIDMC) increase of $1017
($3.54 per kg). When comparing the mass reduction against the baseline mass, for only
those systems evaluated (i.e., not including body and frame vehicle systems), a 19.2%
(287kg/1495kg) mass reduction was achieved. Based on preliminary results from the
Body and Frame System assessments, and anticipated additional mass reduction as a
result secondary mass-savings, the team felt confident that more than 20% vehicle mass
reduction could be achieved with the selected subsystem solutions. The preliminary cost
per kilogram estimate was also below the maximum project limit of $5.10/kilogram.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 72
2.2.5 Step 5: Detailed Mass reduction Feasibility and Cost Analysis
Upon the selection of the optimized vehicle solution, and associated mass reduction
ideas, additional engineering work was employed to verify the mass reduction ideas were
feasible both from the design and manufacturing perspectives. 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 4 Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis -
Vehicle Systems White Papers.
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 of the vehicle systems went up in mass slightly, from the original mass
reduction optimization model, while others came down by similar amounts.
Complete details on the costing assumptions, methodology and tools utilized in this
analysis can be found in Section 2.4. Component specific manufacturing process and
assumption details can be found in the applicable vehicle system whitepapers (Section 4).
Since 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).
Upon completion of developing the final mass reduction and cost calculations for each
vehicle system, the first two process steps (within Step 5) were repeated to account for
secondary mass savings. Vehicle systems within the Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim
Evaluation Group, which qualified from secondary mass-savings, included: engine,
transmission, suspension, brake, exhaust and fuel systems. Established on the initial
vehicle mass reduction results (results without secondary mass-savings), the team felt
confident a minimum 20% vehicle mass reduction was achievable with secondary mass-
savings. Proceeding with the 20% or 477 kg vehicle curb weight (CW) reduction
assumption, systems with secondary mass-savings potential were re-evaluated for
additional mass-savings via component downsizing.
Due to payload and towing requirements, the amount of effective downsizing was
limited. The gross combined weight rating (GCWR) for the Silverado vehicle evaluated
was 6804 kg (15,000 Ibs.). The CW reduction in comparison to the GCWR is only 7%
(477 kg/6,804 kg). Vehicle systems like the engine, transmission, brakes and suspension
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 73
were all designed to perform based on the GCWR. Thus in the secondary mass-savings
analysis, the impact of the 20% CW reduction, relative to the GCWR was considered.
The final component downsizing percentages varied from system to system, details for
each can be found in the respective vehicle system white paper (Section 4). Once the new
component masses with the additional downsizing credits were established, cost models
were updated to reflect the mass changes. For the Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim
Evaluation Group, two set of cost models exist, one with and one without secondary
mass-savings.
The final task in Step 5 was to develop a cost curve representing the average cost per
kilogram of mass reduction in relationship to percent vehicle mass reduction. Cost curves
with and without secondary mass-savings were developed. The process involved sorting
component and assembly mass reduction ideas from best- to least-value. Starting at the
best value mass reduction components, and working down the list, component's mass
and costs were cumulatively summed to establish average cost per kilogram at increasing
levels of vehicle mass reduction. In this first step only mass reduction without secondary
mass-saving could be considered as secondary mass-savings were not consider at
multiple percent vehicle mass reduction points. Extrapolating the $/kg of mass reduction
out to 20.8% vehicle mass reduction (% mass reduction for the primary vehicle solution),
a cost per kilogram comparison between mass reduction with and without secondary
mass-savings was made. The additional benefit of secondary mass-savings at 20.8%
vehicle mass reduction was then ratiometrically applied to other percent vehicle mass
reduction points to create a secondary mass reduction cost curve. Additional details on
cost curve development can be found in Section 2.4.1.4.
It addition to the cost curve, a cost curve with only the Powertrain, Chassis and Trim
Evaluation Group Ideas was assembled as well as a Body Closure cost curve. A summary
of all cost curves developed in the analysis can be found in Section 3.
2.3 Body and Frame Mass reduction Evaluation Group - Methodology
Overview
The following section covers the methodology and tools used by EDAG to evaluate the
body and frame vehicle systems. The general methodology for all vehicle systems shared
similar steps as discussed in the Introduction section (i.e., teardown and fingerprinting the
baseline vehicle, mass reduction idea generation, selection of vehicle mass reduction
ideas, and detailed mass reduction feasibility and cost analysis), although considerably
more analysis was conducted on the body and frame systems to ensure the generated
mass reduction ideas would not degrade the primary safety, durability, or vehicle
dynamics attributes of the vehicle.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 74
2.3.1 Analysis Overview
The intent of the study is to demonstrate a light-weight pickup truck design that meets a
generalized set of performance criteria, is cost-effective, and is achievable to manufacture
in the 2020-2025 timeframe. To accomplish this objective, the team evaluated the
structure and closures of a production Chevrolet 1500 Silverado Crew Cab using
computer-aided engineering (CAE) tools. The typical CAE evaluation process followed
is shown in Figure 2.3-1.
Data Generated from Silverado Teardown
Perform
Scan:
-Body
-Parts
Build FEA
Model
EOAG CAE
Guidelines
RunFEA
Simulation
(SWTness/NVH)
Physical
Testing Resuls
(SWmetUNVH)
OataGenerated from the FEA Models
CAE 1 Testing
Validated
Model
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
FUKVCMCM
Crash FEA
BaseHrw
Model
Comparison
Between
Testing and
Virtual
Factors
(between
Baseline &
Iterations)
-Intrusion
•Crash Pulse
- Del. Modes
Vehicle Tear Down > Vehicle Scan
Build Initial
FEA Model
FEA Model
Validation
Crash FEA
Model Build
Crash FEA
> Model
Comparision
Define
Comparison
Factors
Figure 2.3-1: CAE Evaluation Process and Components
The baseline CAE model utilized was an updated version of the published NHTSA 2007
two-wheel drive Chevrolet 1500 Silverado Crew Cab finite element analysis (FEA)
model. The baseline model was revised to include the new items found on the 2011
Chevrolet 1500 Silverado Crew Cab 4x4 teardown:
1. The frame, was updated to reflect the masses of the 2011 Chevrolet 1500
Silverado Crew Cab 4X4 frame;
2. The powertrain was updated with some of the major changes including:
i. Updated engine/transmission mass and inertias
ii. Added transmission and transfer case
iii. Added front differential, front driveshaft and front half shafts
iv. Updated rear driveshaft
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 75
v. Revised front brake calipers
3. The number and location of the vehicle welds were updated;
4. A new tow bar was added; and
5. The mass distribution was updated on the existing and added components
consistent with the 2011 MY truck curb weight (CW) of 2,454kg (5,4101b) in the
CAE model.
For the CAE analysis, only the structural performance was considered with the physical
effects of dummies, seats, restraint systems or interior trim parts not included in the
analysis. The modified CAE model was analytically tested with the results compared to
actual noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) and crash test results seen in the 2011 4x4
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 vehicles. The baseline model comparison included static NVH
performance (<5% maximum difference) and regulatory safety crash load cases (visual
comparison and quantitative comparison using intrusion, etc.). For the CAE analysis of
crash safety scenarios, only the structural performance was considered (intrusion, g-force,
etc.) with the physical effects of dummies, seats, restraint systems or interior trim parts
not included in the analysis. Upon verifying that the model demonstrated acceptable
quality based on established CAE practices, the model was deemed the baseline and then
utilized as the reference for all further development of the light-weighting optimization
processes.
Advanced, collaborative light-weighting design optimization was then carried out
utilizing gauge, grade, and subsystem parameters in which the subsystem parameters
were individually optimized, to create different weight reduction strategies.
The CAE evaluation cases include cost, structural stiffness (torsion and bending),
regulatory crash requirements (high-speed, low-speed and roof crush), frame fatigue
analysis, and vehicle dynamics performance. The detailed CAE evaluation of the body
structure, cargo box, frame, and closures for the baseline and the light-weighting designs
are presented in the following sub-sections.
2.3.2 Mass Reduction
The Silverado light-weighting project, for the Body and Frame Evaluation Group, was
divided into the following phases and tasks.
• Phase 1: Data, Loadcases, and Baseline Generation
• Phase 2: Definition of comparison factors for Full Vehicle Analysis
• Phase 3: Modularization and System Analysis
• Phase 4: Full Vehicle Optimization
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 76
Based on EDAG best practices of CAE Evaluation process, various inputs, outputs, and
tools used in each process task are provided in Figure 2.3-2 and Figure 2.3-3.
Phase 1:
Data, Loadcase and Baseline Generation for Silverado
H^H^I Baseline Generation
Tear Down
Input Information
Partial Scanning
^^^^1
Output initial FE Model
"I __
> Establish >.
Baseline }
Criteria /
Scan Data
EDAG CAE Modeling
Guidelines
Analysis load cases
Baseline criteria
>
FEA Model
Validation
J
Physical Body-
in-Prime(BIP)
Testing
NVH and
Stiffness
results
correlation
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
Tools
Used White Light Scan
White Light Scan Tear
Down
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Phase 2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
> Crash FEA
Model Build
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA Model
^ model
' Comparison >
Physical Vehicle
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
V Define Crash ~
^ Comparison
r Factors A
Intrusion Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Dyna
Optistruct
EDAG Results
Database and
Tools
ii
Figure 2.3-2: Project Tasks Phase 1 and 2
Phase 1:
Data, Loadcase and Baseline Generation for Silverado
Phase 2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
Silverado 2011
Baseline Generation
Establish
Baseline
Criteria
FEA Model
Validation
Crash FEA
Model Build
Crash FEA
model
Comparison
Define Crash
Comparison
Factors
Input
Scan Data
EDAG CAE Modeling
Guidelines
Physical Body-
in-Prime(BIP)
Testing
NVH and
Stiffness
results
correlation
;r~f
Analysis load cases
Baseline criteria
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Physical Vehicle
Crash
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA Model
Crash results
Comparison
Intrusion Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Dyna
Optistruct
EOAG Results
Database and
Tools
Figure 2.3-3: Project Tasks Phase 3 and 4
Phase 1 included the collection of necessary engineering and analysis data such as
vehicle Bill of Materials (BOM), subsystem and components properties, assembly
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 77
scheme, part connections characteristics and material properties. From a CAE simulation
perspective, most widely conducted CAE loadcases were decided from the subsystem to
the full-vehicle level. Baseline models for each of the loadcases were also developed in
this phase.
Phase 2 was primarily intended for gathering the performance characteristics and
comparison factors (performance criteria) for each loadcase. The target comparison key
attributes in terms of subsystem and full-vehicle performance were established in Phase
2.
Phase 3 and Phase 4 were slotted for CAE-based weight-reduction optimization. An
advanced collaborative optimization was carried out in these phases. The collaborative
optimization included subsystem analyses and multi-disciplinary full-vehicle
optimization by including NVH and crash safety loadcases in one optimization process.
For this purpose, in Phase 3, finite element (FE) models were built by modularization
techniques and subsystem analyses were carried out for subsystem-level weight
reduction. In Phase 4 of the project, full-vehicle automated and interactive optimization
cycles were executed. Phase 4 also included application of several weight-reduction
strategies and EDAG best practices of unleashing maximum weight saving potentials.
Detailed overview of the general tasks of each phase is provided in the following
sections.
2.3.2.1
Phase 1: Data, Load Case and Baseline Generation for Silverado
Phase 1:
Data, Loadcase and Baseline Generation for Silverado
Phase 2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
Silverado 2011
Baseline Generation
Establish
Baseline
Criteria
FEA Model
Validation
Crash FEA
Model Build
Crash FEA
model
Comparison
Define Crash
Comparison
Factors
Input
Scan Data Physical Body-
EDAG CAE Modeling in-Prime (BIP)
Guidelines Testing
itial FE Model
Analysis loadcases
Baseline criteria
NVH and
Stiffness
results
correlation
JL.
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Physical Vehicle
Crash
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA Model
Crash results
Comparison
Intrusion Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Experience In Virtual Validation and Model Generation
ite Light Scan
Tear Down
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
White Light Scan Tear
Down
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Dyna
A3 Animator
EDAG Results
Database and
Tools
Figure 2.3-4: Silverado 2011 Baseline Generation
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 78
The process of baseline generation includes the following stages:
• Process-driven vehicle teardown to get the individual part and subsystem details
including part weights.
• Scanning of the necessary parts and systems to obtain digital geometry and
position data.
• Building initial Finite Element (FE) model.
2.3.2.1.1
Vehicle Teardown
A 2011 Silverado was purchased and completely disassembled by skilled body
technicians. GM body repair manuals were used to aid in the disassembly of vehicle. Part
details and metadata crucial for building the CAE model (such as part weight, material,
and thickness) were obtained and recorded in an assembly hierarchy (Figure 2.3-5).
Outer Trim
Interior
Electrical
Frame
Cabin
Cargo Box
Closures
Chassis, P/T
Vehicle DB
Pictures
Part id. Part Name, Gauge
Part Weight, Material
Figure 2.3-5: Vehicle Teardown Process
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 79
Photos of the disassembled body parts used in the CAE model are shown in Appendix
Section 7.2.1.
EDAG's project scope included determining the baseline vehicle weights through
measurement or calculation. Upon obtaining these weights, including the overall body
weight, major subassembly weights, and key component weights, they were then charted
(Table 2.3-1). This information was used as the baseline weights in the subsequent CAE
evaluation process (Figure 2.3-6).
-------
System
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 80
Table 2.3-1: Mass of Baseline Body and Frame Components and Assemblies
2011 Silverado Model
Baseline Model Mass (Kg)
Body and Frame Structure Subsystems
Box Assembly Pick-Up
108.3
Frame Assembly
242.0
Cabin
207.2
Panel Fender Outer LH
14.9
Panel Fender Outer RH
14.0
Radiator Structure
12.9
IP XMbr Beam Assembly
12.1
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
12 1
Sub-Total
623.5
Body Closure Subsystems
Bumper Front
28.5
Bumper Rear
19.9
Hood Assembly without Hinges
22.7
Door Assembly Front LH
29.0
Door Assembly Front RH
28.9
Door Assembly Rear LH
22.0
Door Assembly Rear RH
22.2
Cargo Box Gate
18.8
Sub-Total
192.0
Total Mass
815.5
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 81
2011 Silverado Model Weight Distribution:
Total 815.5 kg
35%
4% 4%
2% 3% 5% 3% 2%
2% 2% 2% 1% 1%
Figure 2.3-6: Baseline Vehicle Component Distribution
2.3.2.1.2 Vehicle Scanning
For the purpose of building the baseline FE model, the pre-evaluated crash CAE model of
a 2007 Silverado (donor model) was gathered from National Crash Analysis Center
(NCAC), George Washington University.
The 2007 Silverado was compared and revised with the 2011 Silverado assembly
information obtained from the teardown data. The areas updated from the 2007 model are
detailed in Appendix Section 7.2.8.
The geometry of each of the updated component parts was obtained by using White Light
Scanning (WLS) techniques and stored in stereo lithography (STL) format. Figure 2.3-7
shows the methodology used in 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.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 82
Set Target FEALoadcases
I
Identify system configuration forLoadcases
Reference NVH FEA Models Reference Crash FEA Models
Analyze
Stress & Strain ,, D *, „ Analyze
Load Path & Deforming Behavior for
Density & Concentration for Major Major Systems
Systems
Integrating & Filtering Major & Mi nor Parts
I
Identify & Determine minimum required sub-systems and components
Figure 2.3-7: White Light Scanning Part Identification Methodology
Sample images of raw STL data obtained by WLS of the body structure parts are shown
in Appendix Figure 7.2-1.
2.3.2.1.3 Baseline FE Model
A FE model of the scanned parts 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.
2.3.2.1.4 FE Modeling
A commercially available FE meshing tool (ANSA)[7] 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 Figure 2.3-8.
7 ANSA User's Manual 2012
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 83
Raw Data
(STL - Format)
ANSA
Pre-Processing
Clean
FEA Model
Figure 2.3-8: Mesh Generation from STL Raw Data
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The raw STL data (e.g., front cross member) was imported into the meshing tool. The
geometry was then cleaned and meshed as per EDAG meshing quality standards. The
meshed parts were assembled using the connection scheme in the vehicle, which was
captured and documented as part of the scanning activity. EDAG CAE guidelines[8'9]
were followed in building the complete frame assembly hierarchy. Figure 2.3-9 shows
the 2011 Silverado frame assembly FE model developed from the above teardown-
scanning process.
8 EDAG CAE Crash and Safety Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov. 2010
9 EDAG CAE NVH Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov. 2010
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 84
Figure 2.3-9: FE Model of 2011 Silverado Frame Assembly
(Individual parts are shown in different colors)
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The frame assembly was then integrated into the 2007 Silverado FE model. The full
vehicle model was carefully examined for the remaining subsystems and components
compatibility as per 2011 Silverado design space, materials, and connections. Figure
2.3-10 shows the completely assembled FE model of the 2011 Silverado.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 85
Figure 2.3-10: FE Model of 2011 Silverado
(Assemblies are shown in different colors)
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The FEA model was built using subsystem modules methodology. This methodology
allows for subsystem model parameterization and independent analysis, which will be
used during the optimization process. The modules consisted of the following assemblies:
• Body-in-white • Hood
• Frame • Tailgate
• Cabin • Chassis components
• Cargo box • Engine and other powertrain
• Front and rear bumpers components
• Front and rear doors
The gauge (thickness) and material data for each part were accordingly incorporated into
the model. Parts that were not represented as geometry were added in the model as mass
elements with weight and inertia characteristics.
Figure 2.3-11 shows the main subsystems modules of 2011 Silverado model.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 86
Cabin
C' wn I
Figure 2.3-11: 2011 Silverado Baseline Subsystems
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
2.3.2.1.5
FE Materials Selection
Materials are assigned to the structural parts based on the existing NCAC LS-DYNA
model or the new data obtained from the 2011 Silverado scan. Only the laminated glass
included failure modes since it was required for roof crush and side pole crash testing.
No other damage or failure modes were included..
Details of the material models used in this study are shown in Appendix Section 7.2.3.
2.3.2.1.6
Establish Baseline Criteria
The baseline model was established by comparing a number of criteria to the actual
vehicle (Figure 2.3-12). Analysis of weight comparison, NVH, Crash and Safety,
Durability, Bumper Impact Performance, and Vehicle Dynamics were studied. The
results of the weight comparison are included in the results section of this section. The
Bumper Impact and Vehicle Dynamics analyses and results are presented in the results
for the light-weighted CAE design.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 87
Phase 1:
Data, Loadcase and Baseline Generation for Silverado
Phase 2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
Silverado 2011
Baseline Generation
Tear Down
Input Information
Partial Scanning
Output initial FE Model
Establish
Baseline
Criteria
FEA Model
Validation
Crash FEA
Model Build
Crash FEA
model
Comparison
Define Crash
Comparison
Factors
Scan L
EDAG CAE Modeling
Guidelines
Analysis load cases
Baseline criteria
Physical Body-
in-Prime(BIP)
Testing
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Physical Vehicle
Crash
NVH and
Stiffness Initial Crash
results • Vehicle FEA Model
correlation
Crash results
Comparison
Intrusion Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
White Light Scan
Tear Down
White Light Scan Tear
Down
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Dyna
Optistruct
EOAG Results
Database and
Tools
Figure 2.3-12: Establish Baseline Criteria
The process of building the baseline finite element analysis (FEA) models from the initial
FE model involves first gathering all applicable loadcases which can be performed in
virtual CAE analysis and their corresponding simulation output measures. The loadcases
were identified from each test domain:
• NVH
• Crash and Safety
• Durability
• Vehicle Dynamics
This section provides a comprehensive list of the loadcases performed for subsystems and
full vehicle.
2.3.2.1.6.1 Loadcases
The following loadcases (Table 2.3-2) of different analysis areas (disciplines) are
considered in this study.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 88
Table 2.3-2: CAE Loadcases Overview
Discipline System Loadcase
Static Bending
Static Torsion
Static Bending
Static Torsion
M\/l I
Static Bending
Static Torsion
Body On static Bending
Frame static Torsion
FMVSS 208—35 mph flat
frontal crash (US NCAP)
I IMS— 40 mph ODB frontal
crash
FMVSS 214—38.5 mph MDB
side impact (US SINCAP)
Crash / Full
Safety Vehicle ||HS_31 0 mph MDB side
impact
FMVSS 214—20 mph 5th
percentile pole side impact
FMVSS 301—50 mph MDB
rear impact
FMVSS 261 a— Roof crush
FMVSS 581 — Bumper impact
Measures
Global bending stiffness
Global torsion stiffness
Global bending stiffness
Global torsion stiffness
Global bending stiffness
Global torsion stiffness
Global bending stiffness
Global torsion stiffness
Pulse
Crush
Time-to-zero velocity
Dash intrusions
Pulse
Crush
Time-to-zero velocity
Dash intrusions
B-Pillar velocity
Side structure intrusions
B-Pillar velocity
B-Pillar intrusions
Survival space
Exterior crush
B-Pillar velocity
B-Pillar intrusions
Structure intrusions
Under structural zone deformation
Door operability
Fuel tank damage
Roof strength to weight ratio
Front end deformation
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Table 2.3-2 continued next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 89
Table 2.3-2 continued
Discipline System
Frame
(Doors
JHood
Tail gate
Vehicle Full
Dynamics Vehicle
Loadcase
Fatigue
Frame rigidity
Beltline compression
Beltline expansion
Torsion
Sag
Oil canning
Bending
Torsion
Oil canning
Torsion
Oil canning
Constant Radius
J-Turn
Frequency Response
Static Stability Factor (SSF)
Measures
Components Life cycle
Stiffness
Stiffness
Stiffness
Twist stiffness
Vertical deformation
Outer Panel deformation
Stiffness
Twist stiffness
Outer Panel deformation
Twist stiffness
Outer Panel deformation
Understeer Gradient
Cornering Compliance
Roll Gradient
Tire Load
Steering Response Gain
Steering Response Phase lag
Track width/(2 x CG height)
No.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 90
2.3.2.1.7 FEA Model Validation—Baseline NVH Model
The initial (baseline) models were validated as a valid engineering tool by (Figure
2.3-13):
• Building the models using rigorous structured quality processes.
• Associating actual test results with simulation results for selected loadcases.
Phase 1:
Data, Loadcase and Baseline Generation for Silverado
Phase 2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
Silverado 2011
Baseline Generation
Establish
Baseline
Criteria
Tear Down
Information
Partial Scanning
Scan Data
EDAG CAE Modeling
Guidelines
Initial FE Model
Analysis loadcases
Baseline criteria
FEA Model
Validation
Physical Body-
e(BIP)
ing
NVH and
Stiffness
results
correlation
Crash FEA
Model Build
Crash FEA
model
Comparison
Define Crash
Comparison
Factors
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Physical Vehicle
Crash
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA Model
Crash results
Comparison
Intrusion Values
Crash Pulse
Tools
Used
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
d White Light Scan White Light Scan Tear
Tear Down Down
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Dyna
Optistruct
EDAG Results
Database and
Tools
Figure 2.3-13: FEA Model Validation: Baseline NVH and Crash Models
The following subset of the loadcases was used to validate the FEA models. The model
was analyzed in parts (frame, cabin, and box) as well as all together.
NVH Loadcases (tests conducted at Ford Motor Company test labs)
• Frame - Static Bending and Static Torsion
• Cabin - Static Bending and Static Torsion
• Body On Frame - Static Bending and Static Torsion
Crashworthiness Loadcases (utilizing NHTSA test data) Full Vehicle
• FMVSS 208—35 mph flat frontal crash
• FMVSS 214—38.5 mph MDB side impact
• FMVSS 214—20 mph 5th Percentile pole side impact
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 91
See Table 2.3-3 for a summary of the CAE Model parts and elements for the baseline
and light weight development which includes the following:
Table 2.3-3: Model Parts and Elements Summary
Vehicle Part
^^^__^^^
Frame
Cabin
Box
Full Vehicle"
"includes
D # Shell and Solid
rans .-,
Elements
100
138
32
384
extra
287787 shell
279700 shell
4458 solid
113254
756554 shell and
solid
parts and (elements)
FE Weld elements
Seam welds
Physical spot welds
Physical spot welds
Spot welds: seam welds:
bolts and bushings
Model (2007/2011)
2011
2007/2011 with
updated weld locals
2007/2011 same
2007/2011
for holding the different vehicle parts together
2.3.2.1.7.1 FEA Model Validation Process
The validation of the FEA model for NVH was carried out in two different steps based on
EDAG expertise and engineering knowledge. A summary of the model validation and
EDAG CAE baseline model creation is illustrated in Figure 2.3-14.
-------
2011 Silverado
Test Data
2011 Silverado
CAE Model
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 92
Stepl
Physical Property
Physical Test
V
Test Frame / Cabin /
Cargo Box Configuration
Test Results
Static Stiffness
Create EDAG Model
Test Configuration
Run Analytical Test
Compare to Physical
Test Results
I
Correlate Model
Figure 2.3-14: Process Flow to Build Baseline Model
Step I: NVH test setup and collect NVH test results (Test on Actual Vehicle, data
purchased from Ford Motor Company).
Step II: EDAG CAE baseline model construction and correlation of NVH model.
(Baseline model is a 2007 2WD with 2011 updates, 4WD weights, and the major 4x4
powertrain components added.)
The following NVH static loadcases were used to validate the initial FE models of frame
and cabin configurations:
• Frame static bending and torsional stiffness
• Cabin static bending and torsional stiffness
• Whole Vehicle bending and torsional stiffness
The cargo box and closure models are as per the 2007 NHTSA model with no further
validation performed.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 93
2.3.2.1.7.2 Frame
Model Statistics
The frame model consisted of a front-, mid-, and rear-rail assemblies, cross members,
shock towers, and body mount brackets. The FEA model of the entire frame assembly
contained 100 parts made up of 287,787 shell elements. The parts were connected by
means of FE weld elements representing seam welds.
The necessary loadcase-specific boundary conditions were incorporated into the
corresponding model using commercially available pre- and post-processing tools and
analyzed using Altair's Optistruct solver. The model setup in terms of boundary and load
conditions is explained in detail for each of the NVH load cases. Figure 2.3-15 shows the
frame model before incorporating the boundary and load conditions.
Figure 2.3-15: Frame NVH Model
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
Static Bending Stiffness
In the bending stiffness model, the frame was constrained and loaded as shown in Figure
2.3-16. 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 they and z-axes; and the front right shock tower was constrained in the z-
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 94
axis. A bending load of 2,224N was applied at the center of the mid rail (midway
between front and rear seats).
Figure 2.3-16: Loads and Constraints on Frame NVH Model for Bending Stiffness
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The calculation of bending stiffness was calculated using the Z-displacement on the mid
rail under the defined load, and noting the maximum displacement on each measured
location.
Bending Stiffness =
Total Force
Maximum Displacement
Static Torsion Stiffness
The torsion stiffness frame model was constrained and loaded, as shown in Figure
2.3-17. 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 was 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.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 95
Figure 2.3-17: Load and Constraints on Frame NVH Model for Torsional Stiffness
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The calculation of torsion stiffness was done using the angular displacement of the frame
under certain load. The average of the Z-displacement (Z) at the shock tower was
calculated, and then the distance between the shock towers (D) was measured. The
angular displacement (w) was calculated as AT AN (Z/D).
Torsion Stiffness=Total Force*Angular Displacement
Step 1; NVH Test Setup
A 2011 Silverado frame was arranged with the necessary test equipment for static bending
and static torsion measurements. The testing was conducted at the Ford Motor Company
test labs.
Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup
For testing purposes, the frame was instrumented with the necessary deformation
measuring gages at the selected locations. The bending test setup is shown in Image
2.3-1. The deformations at different locations were measured by applying a 2,224N force
at the left and right rocker sections of the front door opening.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 96
Image 2.3-1: Bending Stiffness Testing Setup at the Laboratory
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
With respect to the 2011 Silverado frame assembly, the CAE model was created as an
exact replica of the test setup in order to achieve the test correlation. Figure 2.3-16 and
Figure 2.3-18 show the static bending CAE setup equivalent to the test vehicle.
Figure 2.3-18: Bending Stiffness CAE Setup
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 97
Static Torsion Stiffness Test Setup
Similarly, the vehicle was instrumented for measurement of torsion stiffness
characteristics as shown in Image 2.3-2.
Image 2.3-2: Torsion Stiffness Testing Setup
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The necessary deformations were measured at different test locations by applying 1,200N
and -1,200N on the left and right shock towers respectively. The CAE model was created
by incorporating the same boundary and loading conditions as seen in the physical test
setup. Figure 2.3-19 shows the equivalent CAE model for the torsion stiffness test setup.
Figure 2.3-19: Torsion Stiffness CAE Setup
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 98
Step 2; EDAG CAE Baseline Model
Frame Correlation Summary
The Baseline NVH Frame model was verified by the physical weight and material data.
The test variants considered for the correlation were weight, global bending stiffness, and
global torsion stiffness.
Altair's Optistruct solver was used to analyze the NVH loadcases. The results of the NVH
simulations were studied with respect to the test results. The correlations of the CAE test
results of the frame NVH load cases can be found in Section 4.18.
The same NVH baseline model was integrated accordingly to create the crash safety and
durability baseline models. The model setup and loadcase creations for these disciplines
are explained later in this report.
2.3.2.1.7.3 Cabin Correlation
Model Statistics
The cabin only NVH model consisted of all cabin parts welded, including radiator
support and glass. The meshed model of the Silverado baseline cabin model contained
138 parts made up of 279,700 shell elements and 4,458 solid elements.
The necessary loadcase specific boundary conditions were incorporated into the
corresponding model using commercially available pre- and post-processing tools and
then analyzed using Altair's Optistruct solver. The model setup in terms of boundary and
load conditions is explained in detail for each of the NVH load cases. Figure 2.3-20
shows the NVH model before incorporating the boundary and load conditions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 99
\
Figure 2.3-20: Cabin NVH Model
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
Static Bending Stiffness
In the bending stiffness model, the cabin was constrained and loaded as shown in Figure
2.3-21. The rear-left body mount was constrained in the x-, y-, and z-axes; the rear-right
body mount was constrained in the x- and z-axes; the front left body mount was
constrained in the y- and z-axes; and the front right body mount was constrained in the z-
axis. A bending load of 2,224N was applied on top of the rocker/sill as shown in Figure
2.3-21.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 100
Figure 2.3-21: Loads and Constraints on Cabin NVH Model for Bending Stiffness
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The calculation of bending stiffness was done by measuring the Z-displacement on the
rocker, noting the maximum displacement on each measured location.
Total Force
Bending Stiffness —
Maximum. Displacement
Static Torsion Stiffness
The torsion stiffness cabin model was constrained and loaded, as shown in Figure 2.3-22.
The rear-left mount was constrained in the x-, y-, and z-axes; the rear-right mount was
constrained in the x- and z-axes. Additionally, the center of the front dash board is
constrained in the z-direction. Vertical loads of 1,200N were applied in opposite
directions on the left and right-front mounts. Torsional stiffness was calculated from the
applied load and deflection.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 101
Figure 2.3-22: Load and Constraints on Cabin NVH Model for Torsional Stiffness
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The calculation of torsion stiffness was done by using the angular displacement of the
frame generated when applying certain load. The average of the Z-displacement (Z) at the
front body mounts was calculated, and then the distance between the front body mounts
(D) was measured. The angular displacement (w) was calculated as ATAN (Z/D).
Torsion Stiffness = Total Force * Angular Displacement
Step 1; NVH Test Setup
A 2011 Silverado cabin was setup with the necessary test equipment for static bending
and static torsion measurements. The testing was conducted at the Ford Motor Company
NVH labs.
Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup
For testing purposes, the cabin was instrumented with the necessary deformation
measuring gages at the selected locations. The bending test setup of cabin is shown in
Image 2.3-3. The deformations at different locations were measured by applying a
2,224N force at the left and right rocker sections of the front door opening.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 102
Image 2.3-3: Bending Stiffness Testing Setup
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
With respect to the 2011 Silverado cabin assembly, the CAE model was created as an
exact replica of the test setup in order to achieve the test correlation. Figure 2.3-21 and
Figure 2.3-23 show the static bending CAE setup equivalent to the test vehicle.
Figure 2.3-23: Bending Stiffness CAE Setup
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
Static Torsion Stiffness Test Setup
Similarly, the cabin was instrumented for measurement of torsion stiffness characteristics
as shown in Image 2.3-4.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 103
Image 2.3-4: Torsion Stiffness Testing Setup
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The necessary deformations were measured at different test locations by applying 1,200N
and -1,200N on the left and right front mounts respectively. The CAE model was created
by incorporating the same boundary and loading conditions as seen in the physical test
setup. Figure 2.3-22 and Figure 2.3-24 show the equivalent CAE model for the torsion
stiffness test setup.
Figure 2.3-24: Torsion Stiffness CAE Setup
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 104
Step 2; EDAG CAE Baseline Model
The Baseline NVH Cabin model was verified by the physical weight and material data.
The test variants considered for the correlation were weight, global bending stiffness, and
global torsion stiffness.
NVH Correlation Summary
Altair's Optistruct solver was used to analyze the NVH loadcases. The results of the
NVH simulations were studied with respect to the test results. The correlation of the CAE
test results of the cabin NVH load cases can be found in Section 4.18.
The same NVH baseline model was integrated accordingly to create the NVH modal,
crash, and durability baseline models. The model setup and loadcase creations for these
disciplines are explained later in this report.
2.3.2.1.7.4 Cargo Box
Model Statistics
The cargo box model consisted of the entire box parts welded, including cross-members,
floor, wheel well, and box sides. The FEA model of the entire box assembly contained 32
parts made up of 113,254 shell and solid elements. The parts were connected by means of
FE weld elements representing physical spot welds.
Step 1; NVH Test Setup
The necessary loadcase specific boundary conditions were incorporated into the
corresponding model using commercially available pre- and post-processing tools and
then analyzed using the Altair Optistruct solver. The model setup in terms of boundary
and load conditions is explained in detail for each of the NVH loadcases. Figure 2.3-25
shows the box model before incorporating the boundary and load conditions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 105
Figure 2.3-25: Cargo Box NVH Model
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
Static Bending Stiffness
In the bending stiffness model, the box was constrained and loaded as shown in Figure
2.3-26. The left-end of rear cross-member was constrained in the x-, y-, and z-axes; the
right-end of rear cross-member was constrained in the x- and z-axes; the left-end of front
cross-member was constrained in the y- and z-axes; and right-end of front cross-member
was constrained in the z-axis. A bending load of 2,224N was applied at both left and right
ends of the mid cross-member.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 106
Figure 2.3-26: Loads and Constraints on Cargo Box NVH Model for Bending Stiffness
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The calculation of bending stiffness was done by measuring Z-displacement on the mid
cross-member, noting the maximum displacement on each measured location.
Total Force
Bending Stiffness =
Maximum Displacement
Static Torsion Stiffness
The torsion stiffness box model was constrained and loaded, as shown in Figure 2.3-27.
The left-end of rear cross-member was constrained in the x-, y-, and z-axes; the right-end
of rear cross-member was constrained in the x- and z-axes. Additionally, the center of the
front cross-member was constrained in the z-direction. Vertical loads of 1,200N were
applied in opposite directions on the left and right-end of the mid cross-member.
Torsional stiffness was calculated from the applied load and deflection.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 107
Figure 2.3-27: Load and Constraints on Cargo Box NVH Model for Torsional Stiffness
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The calculation of torsion stiffness was done by calculating the angular displacement of
the box. The average of the Z-displacement (Z) at the mid cross-member is calculated,
and then the distance between the left and right end of mid cross-member (D) was
measured. The angular displacement (w) was calculated as ATAN (Z/D).
Torsion Stiff ness = Total Force * Angular Displacement
Step 2; EDAG CAE Baseline Model
The Baseline NVH cargo box model was verified by the physical weight and material
data.
Altair's Optistruct solver was used to analyze the NVH load cases. The analytical NVH
results for the cargo box can be found in Section 4.18.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 108
2.12.7.7.5 Full Body on Frame (EOF)
Model Statistics
The full Body on Frame (EOF) model included frame, cabin, cargo box BIPs, front
bumper, rear bumper and trailer hitch subsystems. The FEA model of the entire BOF
contained 384 parts, made up of 756,554 shell and solid elements. The parts were
connected by means of FE connection elements representing spot welds, seam welds,
bolts, and bushings. The fully assembled body is shown in Figure 2.3-28. As discussed
earlier, in this assembly, the frame is the same configuration as the 2011 Silverado frame,
the cabin is the 2007 Silverado configuration (donor model) with updates from 2011
Silverado gauges, and the cargo box is same as the 2007 Silverado configuration (donor
model).
Figure 2.3-28: Body on Frame NVH Model
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The cabin was rubber mounted (with bushings) and the cargo box was hard mounted
(bolted) on to the frame. There were eight bushing mounts connecting the frame and
cabin together, four on either side of the vehicle. The bushings were located at the front
end (Bushing #4), two at the rocker area under the cabin (Bushing #1 and Bushing #2),
and another at the rear end (Bushing #3). The schematic representation of the bushings is
shown in Figure 2.3-29.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 109
Bushing #3
Bushing #2
Bushing #1
Bushing #4
Figure 2.3-29: Bushings in CAE Model
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
There were three types of bushings used; Bushing #4 at the front end is of the same type
of Bushing #2. The bushing rates were determined by the push in/out test and torsion test.
In the push in/out test, all bushings were pushed in/out statically as shown in Image
2.3-5. In the torsion test, a static torsion load was applied to all the bushings as shown in
Image 2.3-6.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 110
Image 2.3-5 (Left): Push In/Out Test
Image 2.3-6 (Right): Torsion Test
In both tests, bushings were loaded statically from 1.0 kN to 8.0 kN at the increment of
1.0 kN resulting in eight stiffness curves per bushing. Based on mass and load
calculations, the stiffness curves at 3 kN load were used in CAE modeling. The bushing
rates were assigned to the respective bushes. For discussion purpose, sample stiffness
curves for bushing 1 are shown in Figure 2.3-30 and Figure 2.3-31.
Deflection (mm)
Figure 2.3-30: Bushing #1 - Push In/Out Test Results
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 111
1
I
Deflection (mm)
Figure 2.3-31: Bushing #1 - Torsion Test Results
The necessary loadcase specific boundary conditions were incorporated into the EOF
model using commercially available pre- and post-processing tools and then analyzed
using Altair's Optistruct solver. The model setup in terms of boundary and load
conditions is explained in detail for each of the NVH loadcases.
Static Bending Stiffness
In the bending stiffness BOF model, the frame was constrained and bending load was
applied to the cabin as shown in Figure 2.3-32.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 to the cabin
rocker/sill (both left and right side) at the center of front and rear seats just before the B-
pillar.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 112
Figure 2.3-32: Loads and Constraints on EOF NVH Model for Bending Stiffness
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The calculation of bending stiffness was done by measuring Z-displacement on the mid
rail of frame, noting the maximum displacement on each measured location.
Bending Stiffness =
Total Force
Maximum Displacement
Static Torsion Stiffness
In the torsion stiffness EOF model, frame was constrained and loaded, as shown in
Figure 2.3-33. 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 was 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.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 113
Figure 2.3-33: Load and Constraints on EOF NVH Model for Torsional Stiffness
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
The calculation of torsion stiffness is done by calculating the angular displacement of the
frame. The average of the Z-displacement (Z) at the front shock towers is calculated, and
then the distance between the shock towers (D) is measured. The angular displacement
(w) is calculated as ATAN (Z/D).
Torsion Stiff ness = Total Force * Angular Displacement
Step 1: NVH Test Setup
The BOF was setup with the necessary test equipment for static bending and static torsion
measurements. The testing was conducted at the Ford Motor Company NVH labs.
Static Bending Stiffness Test Setup
For testing purposes, the frame and cabin were instrumented with the necessary
deformation measuring gages at the selected locations. The bending test setup is shown in
Image 2.3-7. The deformations at different locations were measured by applying a
2,224N force at the left and right rocker sections of the front door openings of cabin.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 114
Image 2.3-7: Bending Stiffness Testing Setup
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
With respect to the Silverado EOF, the CAE model was created as an exact replica of the
test setup in order to achieve the test correlation. Image 2.3-7 and Figure 2.3-34 show
the static bending CAE setup equivalent to the test vehicle.
Figure 2.3-34: Bending Stiffness CAE Setup
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
Static Torsion Stiffness Test Setup
Similarly, the vehicle was instrumented for measurement of torsion stiffness
characteristics as shown in Image 2.3-8.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 115
Image 2.3-8: Torsion Stiffness Testing Setup
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The necessary deformations were measured at different test locations by applying 1,200N
and -1,200N on the left and right front shock towers respectively. The CAE model was
created by incorporating the same boundary and loading conditions as seen in the
physical test setup. Figure 2.3-35 shows the equivalent CAE model for the torsion
stiffness test setup.
Figure 2.3-35: Torsion Stiffness CAE Setup
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 116
Step 2; EDAG CAE Baseline Model
The Baseline EOF NVH model was verified by the physical weight and material data.
The test variants considered for the correlation were weight, global bending stiffness, and
global torsion stiffness.
NVH Correlation Summary
Altair's Optistruct solver was used to analyze the NVH loadcases. The results of the
NVH simulations were studied with respect to the 2011 Silverado test results.
The correlation of the CAE test results of the EOF NVH load case is shown in Section
4.18 along with the test results of the 2011 Silverado vehicle.
2.3.2.2
Phase 2: Definition of Comparison for Full Vehicle Crash
Phase 1:
Data, Loadcase and Baseline Generation for Silverado
Silverado 2011
Baseline Generation
Establish
Baseline
Criteria
FEA Model
Validation
Tear Down Scan Data Physical Body-
Information EDAG CAE Modeling in-Prime (BIP)
Partial Scanning Guidelines Testing
Initial FE Model
NVH and
Analysis load cases Stiffness
Baseline criteria results
correlation
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
White Light Scan White Light Scan Tear
Tear Down Down
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Phase 2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
Crash FEA
Model Build
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA Model
Crash FEA
model
Comparison
Define Crash
Comparison
Factors
Physical Vehicle
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
Intrusion Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Dyna
Optistruct
EDAG Results
Database and
Tools
Figure 2.3-36: Crash FEA Model Build
2.3.2.2.1 LS-DYNA Model Build
I. Major System for Full Vehicle Model
In order to build the full-vehicle crash model, the validated NVH BIP frame, cabin, and
cargo box models (from FEA Model Validation—Baseline NVH Model) were utilized.
Other components added to complete the baseline FEA model are listed in the following
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 117
bullet points. The gauge map and material map of different modules including frame,
cabin, cargo box, and closures are provided in Silverado 2011 Baseline Generation. The
gauge and material data for the remaining structural assembly parts were also
incorporated accordingly.
• Hood, doors, and tailgate for closures
• Front and rear bumper structural parts were also included to represent realistic
high-speed front and rear-crash scenarios
• Powertrain assembly, major engine and transmission parts, radiator assembly, and
exhaust system parts (all parts are critical to a high-speed frontal impact scenario)
• The fuel tank system parts (critical for rear and side-impact scenario)
• The rear seat subsystem was represented as a lumped mass (critical for front and
rear-impact scenarios)
• An EDAG FEA seat system (integrated to take into account resistance of seat
structure deformation in side-impact scenarios)
The full-vehicle crash model consisted of a total of 1,104,226 elements and was trimmed
to a curb mass of 2,454 kg. The major systems of the full-vehicle crash model are built in
a modularized approach as explained in Silverado 2011 Baseline Generation.
Table 2.3-4: Contents of EDAG CAE Baseline Model
Model Detail
Total number of shell elements
Total number of solid elements
Total number of beam discrete and misc. elements
Total number of FE elements
Count
1,057,178
43,511
3,537
1,104,226
Total number of nodes
Total number of part IDs
1,137,108
684
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 118
II. Mass Validation
EDAG standard CAE Modeling guidelines[10] were followed throughout the model
building process.
Vehicle Mass: Curb weight was 2,454 kg. For each loadcase, dummies and cargo was
added per the test protocols. The appropriate number of dummies was added (modeled
with simplified lumped mass and spring representations, using nominal instrumented
dummy mass values) and the cargo mass was added, per the specific test protocols, as a
rigid container in the center of the cargo box.
CG: The vehicle CG was calibrated to be also within approximately 1% of the test
measurement. The main reason for the difference is that the CAE model contained many
of the 2007 Silverado assemblies. It is important to note that the full vehicle CAE model
was the EDAG developed model which was representative of a 2011 Silverado vehicle.
III. FE Modeling Technique
There are many aspects of FE modeling that affects the accuracy of the simulation and
the turn-around time of the numerous iterations required in the project. In order to meet
the scope and timing of the project, it is critical to select these factors carefully so that the
FE models will meet the requirements for simulation accuracy, consistency of the various
iterations and additionally, provide the iteration turn-around time efficiency required.
Crash loadcases were simulated using LS-DYNA explicit time integration non-linear FE
code. A partial list of the factors pertaining to LS-DYNA performance is presented
below. These factors, and the resulting factors assigned to them, were determined by
following the recent FE analysis trends and increasing the focus on factors that provide
improved simulation accuracy. In part this is now possible by virtue of the enhanced
computing power available today. However, it must also be noted some of these factors
are still being debated throughout the automotive industry since the solver code and
modeling techniques still have limitations in the correlation accuracy with physical tests.
1. Welding Property
The spot welds on the structure are represented using the mesh independent spot-weld
beam weld elements. The material model used does not include spot-weld failure.
EDAG CAE Crash and Safety Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov. 2010
2. Element Formulation
The element formulation in this BIW model is the LS-DYNA Type-16 fully-integrated
Bathe-Dvorkin shell element for major load path parts.
10 EDAG CAE Crash and Safety Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov. 2010
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 119
3. Integration Points
The integration point through the thickness of the sheet metal in this BIW model is used
with the 5-point integration option for major load path parts.
4. Material Failure Criteria
The material models used for the structural parts did not include a damage or failure
model.
2.3.2.2.2 Baseline Crash Model Set-up
The CAE models are run over a number of NHTSA FMVSS crash tests using contractor
confidential barrier models to prove out the CAE model versus actual vehicle crash data
found in the NHTSA database. While the crash tests typically utilize dummy injury
criteria to evaluate against a gage of parameters, the LS-DYNA models used in this study
do not include occupant or restraint models so the performance is evaluated against
structural performance metrics only. The metrics are a combination of the physical test
metrics (e.g., intrusion in the NHTSA tests) and other measures selected to monitor the
structural performance related to the loading on the occupants in each loadcase.
Additional crash tests will be run to provide a baseline for those tests when comparing
the results of the light weighted vehicle.
The selected loadcases are described briefly below. The baseline vehicle was evaluated to
actual vehicle crash NHTSA data for frontal and side-impact loadcases. These loadcases
were:
1. FMVSS 208—35mph, flat frontal crash with rigid wall barrier, same as the US New
Car Assessment Program (US NCAP)
2. FMVSS 214—38.5mph,side impact with moving deformable barrier (MDB) at 27
degrees, same as US Side Impact New Car Assessment Program (US SINCAP)
3. FMVSS 214 Pole—20mph, 5thPercentile, side impact with rigid pole barrier at 15
degrees
Once acceptable results were obtained in these crash load cases additional crash
simulations were run to further enhance the baseline model and provide additional
comparisons for the potential light weight solutions. These load cases included:
1. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)—40mphfrontal crash with Offset
Deformable Barrier (ODB)
2. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)—3 Imph, side impact with moving
deformable barrier (MDB) at 90° degrees
3. FMVSS 301—50mph, rear impact with moving deformable barrier (MDB)
4. FMVSS 216a—Roof crush resistance (utilizing the higher standard IIHS roof crush
resistance criteria)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 120
Figure 2.3-37 shows six different loadcase configurations, IIHS MDB is not shown, with
appropriate barriers placed against the full vehicle baseline model.
-I-
Figure 2.3-37: Baseline Crash Model Evaluation
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
Note: IIHS Small Overlap being evaluated on the lightweight vehicle in a separate
effort with Transport Canada and EDAG.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 121
2.3.2.3
Phase 3: Modularization and System Analysis
Input
Tools
Used
Phase 3:
Modularization and System Analysis
•vuttlular^V 4. , - . -
Correlated Crash
Systems FEA
Model
Systems Results on
Systems FEA
Stiffness, Crush and
Models
Fatigue
Phase 4:
Full Vehicle Optimization
y Oef. Systems ^L Genet,. N
^ f-ompjrison ^
^ Factors f Alternatives A
System
Results
Target and
Comparison
Factors for
Systems
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA Software
for Model Quality
Check
Systems FEA
Models and
Comparison
Factors
Systems
alternatives
which meet
performance
Systems Costs
> Constrains, \
Responses &
VctFKlbtPS J
Full Vehicle
and Systems
Responses
Project
Objectives
Stable
Optimization
Algorithm
> full Vehicle
Opttmi/ation
Full Vehicle
FEA
optimization
Algorithm
Optimized
FEA Models
which meet
Weight and
Costs Targets
^j
> Optimized
Final Design
>
Optimized
Full Vehicle
FEA Models
Final Design
Optimization
and
Cost/Weight
Curve
Generation
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
EDAG Results
Database
and Tools
Figure 2.3-38: Create Modular FEA Models
This section under Phase 3 of the light-weight design optimization process explains the
baseline stage of full vehicle integrated optimization and the remaining subsystem
analyses.
2.3.2.3.1
Create Silverado Modular FEA Models
As described previously, the full vehicle model was built in subsystems modules. The
validated crash model was further refined to be compatible with subsystem
parameterization and plug-and-play integration techniques. Altair's Optistruct and LS-
DYNA approaches for module management by means of "INCLUDE" statements were
utilized accordingly for NVH/Durability and Crash loadcases. Light weighting strategies
and applicable subsystem level variations were considered while grouping the
subsystems. Figure 2.3-39 shows typical subsystem modules built for body-on-frame
type of vehicle.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
JuneS, 2015
Page 122
KWAssembling f
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 123
Figure 2.3-40: Subsystems to Full Vehicle Integrated Optimization
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 124
The process flow (Figure 2.3-40) starts with identifying the necessary parts from each
subsystem, and full-vehicle loadcases, by analyzing the respective performance criteria.
Once the parts are identified, the subsystem analysis is carried out by considering NVH
and durability performance targets first to obtain all feasible combinations of material
grade and gauge. The feasible designs are in the form of subsystem models with reduced
weight and with the same or better performance compared to the baseline models. The
feasible designs are then integrated as input parameters into the full vehicle non-linear
optimization. Thus the collaborative trade off process involves the following stages:
Stage 1: Subsystem analysis:
Identify parts that can be optimized to reduce the most weight from each loadcase such
as:
• Body subsystems - Static bending, static torsion, and dynamic modal
• Closure subsystems - Rigidity, strength, denting, oil canning, and sag.
• Full vehicle - Frontal, side, rear, and roof-crush
Determine the range of optimization parameters from subsystem analysis. The loadcases
involved are:
• Body subsystems - Static bending, static torsion, and dynamic modal
• Closure subsystems - Rigidity, strength, denting, oil canning, and sag
Obtain feasible subsystem models.
Stage 2: Full vehicle integrated analysis:
• Integrate feasible subsystem models from Stage 1 as input parameters
• Establish minimum and maximum range of material grade and gauge for each part
• Establish full vehicle performance and cost constraints
Stage 3: Human intelligence:
Inject updated designs as new inputs to the optimization due to the following:
• Design change of parts not originally included in the process/analysis (e.g.,
Powertrain, Chassis)
• Change of joining technology
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 125
Stage 4: Apply additional weight reduction strategies:
Obtain models from Stage 3, the output of full vehicle integrated analysis and trade off.
• Optimize performance by iterating joining technologies
• Material replacement with alternative materials within the manufacturability
constraints
• Optimize by utilizing alternative manufacturing technologies such as tailor rolled
blank (TRB) or tailor welded blank (TWB), etc.
2.3.2.3.2
System Analysis
Phases:
Modularization and System Analysis
Phase 4:
Full Vehicle Optimization
m
Output
Correlated Crash
Model
Systems FEA
SyslcMns Analysis
Systems FEA
Systems Results on
Stiffness, Crush and
Fatigue
itison
System
Results
Target and
Comparison
Factors for
Systems
Systems FEA Fu''
Models and
Comparison
Factors
Obj
Systems
alternatives St
which meet Optir
performance Alg<
Systems Costs
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA Software
for Model Quality
Check
Constrains,
1 Responses &
Variables
Project
Stable
Full Vehicle
FEA
optimization
Algorithm
Optimized
FEA Models
which meet
Weight and
Costs Targets
Optimized
Full Vehicle
FEA Models
Final Design
Optimization
and
Cost/Weight
Curve
Generation
EDA6 Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
EDAG Results
Database
and Tools
Figure 2.3-41: Systems Analysis
Subsystem analysis is carried out for two reasons: 1) weight opportunities of the
subsystem itself with subsystem performance targets, and 2) determining the minimum
and maximum range of material grade and gauge values to be used in further full vehicle
optimization.
Out of all the subsystems explained in earlier sections, the system analysis for Frame,
Cabin, and Cargo Box were performed for NVH load cases and obtained the baseline
results. In the results section (Section 4.18.3) the system analysis of the remaining
subsystems (closures) are explained with NVH strength and stiffness load cases to
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 126
establish baseline models. The targets for performance included in the tables are based on
past EDAG experience for closures of a similar size and construction.
2.3.2.4
Phase 4: Full Vehicle Optimization
2.3.2.4.1 Lightweight Design Optimization Overview
The project scope included the objective of investigating lightweight design possibilities
of the baseline vehicle and the costs associated with them. It consisted of optimizing and
modifying the design of the baseline model in systems and subsystems such as frame,
body structure, closures, and bumpers.
EDAG expertise processes and standards on lightweight optimization processes were
followed throughout this project phase. CAE-based Multi-disciplinary Optimization
(MDO) was carried out by including load cases of regulatory safety requirements and
structural performance standards previously described in this report. The typical
lightweight optimization process followed in this project is shown in Figure 2.3-42.
Frame
Cargo Box
Closures
{door*., fender, hood,...)
Powertrain
(engine, transmission,..)
PTSE
(fuel, exhaust, cooling,,}
Interior
(seats, IP, Trim,
Chassis
(steering, axles.
Body, Frame, Box and
Closures Design Space
Matrix
Each System with
their own:
Variables
Requirements
Full Vehicle
Analysis and
Multidisciplinary
Collaborative
Optimization
Possible
Solutions
Plot with:
Opportunity
versus Costs
and Weight
Figure 2.3-42: Lightweight Design Optimization Process
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 127
2.3.2.4.1.1 Lightweight Design Strategy
The overall principles followed during the study included:
• Minimize cost impact
• Minimize the use of exotic materials (carbon fiber, titanium, composites, etc.)
• Minimize the use of non-proven manufacturing technology
• Minimize the amount of redesign, retooling, or new processing
2.3.2.4.1.1.1 Materials
Due to the technical advancements in steels (High Strength Steels [HSS]) and Advanced
High Strength Steels [AHSS]) and opportunities of other materials such as aluminum,
magnesium, composites, etc., weight reduction by material replacement is one of the
avenues utilized in this project.
For steel, the material (grade) replacement (HSS, AHSS, etc.) allows making the vehicle
components lighter with reduced material thickness (gauge) and for aluminum and
magnesium, light weighting would be achieved by the materials of lower density [11>12];
and volume to maitain performance requirments. These changes would affect the
structural performance, crash worthiness, and occupant safety requirements and so when
looking at alternative materials in the vehicle, partial or complete redesigning or shape
change (geometry) of the components is necessary to maintain the regulatory safety
requirements as well as the manufacturer's structural performance standards. Geometry
changes can also be large scale load path optimization and suggest a new design for the
body-in-white (BIW).
2.3.2.4.1.1.2 Cost
Selection of high strength, lightweight materials can result in material cost increase
depending on the grade and quantity of materials selected, amount of redesign efforts,
etc. Changes in production methods may result in some cost savings. The right balance
11 Chang, David Justusson, William J., "Structural Requirements in Material Substitution for Car-Weight
Reduction", SAE 1976.
12 Cheah, Lynette., "Cars on a Diet: The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger Vehicle Weight Reduction in
the U.S.", MIT 2010.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 128
between weight reduction and cost increase is always the challenge in lightweight vehicle
design.
2.3.2.4.1.1.3 Methodology
Optimization and trade-off techniques have been developed to evaluate these diverse
scenarios. In case of vehicle light weight design, the three structural parameters; material
Grade, Gauge and Geometry (3G) and one Cost (C) parameter need to be iterated while
targeting the optimum(s) weight reduction without compromising structural and
crash/safety performance requirements. Based on EDAG lightweight optimization
process standards and research materials-[13' 14i, the following weight reduction strategy
was carried out:
• Change material gauges and grades for steel
o Vary the combinations of part thicknesses and material grades within
allowable limits
• Apply alternative materials
o Use aluminum alternatives for panel parts (closures) and bumpers
o Use aluminum alternatives for structural parts and subsystems
• Change joining technologies
o Convert spot-weld connections into laser-weld connections on the body
structure
o Use of adhesives or bonding technologies
• Explore alternate manufacturing technologies
o Use tailor rolled blanks (TRB) instead of tailor welded blanks (T WB)
o Use of hydro forming technology
• Geometry changes
o Make minimum, if any, design changes needed to meet the performance
targets
• Manufacturability constraints
o Incorporate simultaneously the manufacturability of the parts that are
undergoing the changes, in each stage of the optimization process
• Cost constraints
o Analyze cost impact due the changes in the optimization process
13 "Ultra-Light Steel Auto Body report by Porsche Engineering Service, Inc. for Phase I and Phase II Findings,"
March 1998 published by ULSAB Consortium.
14 Pavel Brabec, Miroslav Maly, and Robert Vozenilek, "Experimental Determination of a Powertrain's Inertia
Ellipsoid."
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 129
Even though by redesigning the body parts (geometry change) the potential for weight
reduction increases, geometry changes were not part of the project scope, and weight
optimization was carried out without undertaking major design changes. Only grade and
gauge changes were mostly made (2G).
2.3.2.4.2 Generate Systems Alternatives
Input
Output
Phase 3:
Modularization and System Analysis
Phase 4:
Full Vehicle Optimization
Del. Systems
Comparison
Factors
Constrains,
Responses &
Variables
Full Vehicle
Optimization
Optimized
Final Design
Correlated Crash
Model
Systems FEA
Systems FEA
Models
Systems Results on
Stiffness, Crush and
Fatigue
System
Results
Target and
Comparison
Factors for
Systems
EDAG Experience In Virtual Validation and Model Generation
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA Software
for Model Quality
Check
Generate
Systems
Alternatives
Systems FEA
Models and
Comparison
Factors
Systems
alternatives
which meet
performance
Systems Costs
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
^r^^ ^fj^m j*
Full Vehicle
and Systems
Responses
Project
Objectives
Stable
Optimization
Algorithm
Full Vehicle
FEA
optimization
Algorithm
Optimized
FEA Models
which meet
Weight and
Costs Targets
Optimized
Full Vehicle
FEA Models
Final Design
Optimization
and
Cost/Weight
Curve
Generation
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
EDAG Results
Database
and Tools
Figure 2.3-43: Generate Subsystems Alternatives
Once the baseline models and targets were obtained for each subsystem, various
alternatives (feasible designs) were attempted to develop a library for each subsystem.
These subsystem libraries were later integrated to full vehicle optimization as variables
(subsystems) while executing the optimization cycle. In this section, various strategies of
developing such systems alternatives are explained.
First, at the subsystem level, 2GC optimization and CAE simulations were carried out for
the corresponding applicable loadcases.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 130
2.3.2.4.2.1 Change Material Grades and Causes
2.3.2.4.2.1.1 Subsystem 2GC Optimization
The individual subsystems were evaluated for 2GC using approved CAE processing
tools. The optimization variables for 2GC optimization process were material grade and
part thickness. The constraints were the target performance metrics such as body bending
stiffness, torsion stiffness, modal frequencies, closures and panel deformations, and
material cost. In order to reduce the analysis cycle time, commercially available
optimization tools Genesis and HEEDS MDO were used depending on the linear or non-
linear characteristics of the loadcases.
2.3.2.4.2.1.2 Subsystem Iteration
In addition, each subsystem was manually iterated for high-strength material utilization,
alternative material replacement (aluminum, magnesium, etc.), change of joining
technologies, and using TRB/TWB accordingly. The main purpose of these iterations was
to improve subsystem performance to extend the weight reduction potential in the full
vehicle optimization stage.
2.3.2.4.2.2 Material Changes
2.3.2.4.2.2.1 Steel (HSS/AHSS)
The subsystems explained in the previous sections were analyzed to improve their
performance by including HSS and AHSS materials. A list of HSS and AHSS considered
in developing subsystem alternatives is provided in Table 2.3-5.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 131
Table 2.3-5: HSS and AHSS Subsystem Alternatives
ttem#
1
2
3
4
f,
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Steel Grade
DP 300/500
HSLA 350/450
DP 350/600
TRIP 350/600
DP 400/700
TRIP 400/700
HSLA 420/600
FB 450/600
TRIP 450/800
HSLA 490/600
TWIP 500/980
CP 500/800
DP 500/800
HSLA 550/650
Sf 570/640
SF 600/780
DP 700/1 000
CP 800/1000
MS 950/1200
CP 1000/1200
CP 1050/1470
HF 1050/1 500 (22Mn85)
DP1 150/1270
MS 1150/1400
MS 1250/1500
Thickness (mm)
Mint Max t
0,5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0 76
1.8
0.9
075
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.75
29
0.6
08
05
1.0
06
0.5
2.5
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
2.3
3.0
3.2
2.3
2
1.5
Gage
Length
A80
ABO
A80
A50
A80
A80
A50M
A80
A50
A50
A50
A50
ABO
Asoy
A50M
A50M
A50
A50M
YS (Mpa)
Win
300
350
350
350
400
400
420
450
450
490
500
500
500
550
570
600
700
800
950
1000
1050
1150
1150
1250
YS(Mpa)
Tvoical
345
360
385
400
430
530
550
510
650
520
586
650
720
845
960
1020
1059
1200
UTS (Mpa)
Mill
500
450
600
600
700
700
500
560
800
600
980
800
800
650
640
780
1000
1000
1200
1200
1470
1270
1400
1520
UTS (Mpa}
Tvoical
520
470
640
630
530
605
825
630
990
835
676
830
1030
1005
1250
1230
1495
1271
1420
Tot EL (%)
Tvoical
30-34
23-27
24-30
29-33
19-25
24-28
22-26
18-23
26-32
20-25
60
10-14
14-20
19-23
20-24
20-24
12-17
8-13
5-7
8-10
11
9
4-7
3-6
N value
TvDical
0.16
0.16
0 19
0.20
0.14
0.11
0.24
013
0.4
0.14
012
0.08
009
0 11
0.07
0.04
0.118
007
Modulus of
Elasticity (MDat
20.6 x 104
21. 8 x 10'
21 3 x 104
21 Ox 10*
21 0 x 1Q4
21.0x10'
21 .Ox 104
22.4x10'
20.1 x W4
21.0x10'
18.8 x 10"
21 0 x 104
21 .2 x 10"
21 .2 x 10"
21.0 x 10J
21 0 x 10*
21. Ox 10*
22 9 x 10"
20.8 x 10*
21 .Ox 10*
21 5 x 104
21 .5 x 10"
21 0 x 104
21 Ox 10"
When the low-strength steel materials (steel materials with lower yield strength such as
Mild Steel) are changed to high-strength steel materials (steel materials with higher yield
strength such as HSLA Steel), the respective part thickness is modified accordingly to
maintain the performance level. Each subsystem was subjected to change of higher grade
materials and part thickness based on engineering analysis and EDAG optimization
techniques. CAE simulations were carried out for the subsystem-specific loadcases to
verify the performance compliance to be same or better than baseline targets.
2.3.2.4.2.2.2 Aluminum
Alternative material choices for an automobile's body structure have been increasingly
one of the considerations in building a lightweight vehicle. Aluminum-based materials
are proven for their better strength:weight ratio equivalent when compared to steel-based
materials[15]. They are, therefore, good replacements for the steel grades of bigger panels.
15 Advance, Lightweight Materials Development and Technology for Increasing Vehicle Efficiency by KVA Inc.
Dec. 2008
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 132
Considering the cost and manufacturing constraints, the carefully selected parts of
various systems were changed to aluminum-grade materials.
The thickness was changed by incorporating EDAG expertise and performing further
CAE simulations while at the same time also meeting structural and crash performance
targets. This option was further supported by the work done by the Superlight-Car[16]
projects. Three of the major subsystems that utilized aluminum changes are shown in
Figure 2.3-44 through Figure 2.3-46.
Aluminum
Trans X-member
Frame
Aluminum
Front X-member
Figure 2.3-44: Aluminum used in the Frame
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
16 Dr. Marc Stehlin, SuperLight-Car, Volkswagen Group Research, under Sustainable Production Technologies of
Emission Reduced Light Weight Car Concepts, April 2008.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 133
Cast Aluminum
Figure 2.3-45: Aluminum used in the Cabin
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
Aluminum Sheet
Cargo Box
Figure 2.3-46: Aluminum used in the Cargo Box
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
2.3.2.4.2.3 Alternative Joining Technology
2.3.2.4.2.3.1 SteelJoining
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 134
In the process of lightweight optimization to obtain subsystem alternatives, an
exploration was made into the alternative joining technologies for part assembly. One of
the options considered was changing spot welds to laser welds on frame, cabin, and cargo
box. The potential areas of applying laser welding were identified at the tailor rolled
blanks (TRB) replacement areas. The alternatives developed by this approach were the
combination of laser welds and tailor rolled blank parts. The subsystem development by
tailor rolled blank changes is explained in the following Alternative Manufacturing
Technology section
2.3.2.4.2.3.2 Aluminum Joining
The proposed BIW construction combination of self-piercing rivets (SPR) and bonding
with pressed aluminum panels and aluminum castings.
blankholder
punch
~rivet
Figure 2.3-47: SPR Sequence
The process for SPR is currently used in high-volume manufacturing at Jaguar Land
Rover, Audi, and other OEMs.
2.3.2.4.2.3.3 Adhesives
The other important joining technology for aluminum body designs is adhesive bonding.
The properties of joints can be significantly improved by use of heat cured epoxy
adhesives. Normally adhesive bonds are applied in a linear form. Such joints exhibit
excellent stiffness and fatigue characteristics, but should be used in conjunction with spot
welding, riveting or other mechanical fastening methods in order to improve resistance to
peel in large deformation (i.e., during crash). Also, surface pretreatment is necessary for
long term durability of adhesively-bonded structural joints.
2.3.2.4.2.4 Alternative Manufacturing Technology
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 135
Recent advancements in manufacturing technologies led to the conclusion that alternative
manufacturing options should also be included in the lightweight design process. One
such technology is the manufacturing of hot stamped parts of varied thicknesses using
tailor rolled blanks (TRB). In this technology, the blank is prepared by a special rolling
process which can produce varied thicknesses along the length of the blank without
needing any seam or laser welding or trimming processes. This is considered to achieve
better structural strength against weight of the part. For a baseline body structure, the
parts of tailored welded blanks (TWB) are good choices. Accordingly, considering the
cost impact, potential TWB parts were identified and assessed for the possibility of
producing the same parts using TRBs. Frame rails, Cabin A-pillar, B-pillar, roof rails,
and seat cross members were assessed by using TRB technology. Out of several
alternatives explored within frame, cabin, and cargo box subsystems, the frame
alternative was found to be a feasible design. The TRB part replaced at the mid and rear,
inner and outer rail parts as shown in Figure 2.3-48 and the rolled gauge transition of the
TRB is also shown in Figure 2.3-49.
Figure 2.3-48: Frame Rail Parts Replaced with TRB Parts
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 136
Figure 2.3-49: Frame Rail TRB Part Gauge Map
(Source: EDAG, Inc.)
It was observed that not all the strategies yielded alternatives in each sub-subsystem. For
example, the frame yielded three different alternatives from HSS, aluminum, tailor rolled
blank parts, while closures yielded only two alternatives from HSS and aluminum.
However reasonable number of alternatives were obtained from each strategy and utilized
in the full vehicle optimization.
2.3.2.4.2.5 Subsystem Optimization Results
Improved and feasible designs were obtained for each subsystem from the above 2GC
optimization and subsystem iteration. They are in the form of FE models which are
lightweight and within the allowable limits for performance when compared to the
baseline subsystems. In addition to the feasible designs, the range of material grades and
part thickness were also recorded.
2.3.2.4.3
Full Vehicle Optimization
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 137
Phase 3:
Modularization and System Analysis
Phase 4:
Full Vehicle Optimization
ii/ctddo Modular
TEA Model
Systems Analyst
Oef. Systems
Com p-!
Factors
Generate
Systems
Alternatives
fonslrains,
Responses &
Variables
Input
Output
Correlated Crash
Model
Systems FEA
Models
Systems FEA
Systems Results on
Stiffness, Crush and
Fatigue
System
Results
Target and
Comparison
Factors for
Systems
Systems FEA
Models and
Comparison
Systems
alternatives
which meet
performance
Systems Costs
Full Vehicle
and Systems
Responses
Project
Objectives
Stable
Optimization
Algorithm
Full Vehicle
Optimization
Full Vehicle
FEA
optimization
Algorithm
Optimized
FEA Models
which meet
Weight and
Costs Targets
Optimized
Final Design
Optimized
Full Vehicle
FEA Models
Final Design
Optimization
and
Cost/Weight
Curve
Generation
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Ansa Advanced
Tools EDAG FEA Software
Used for Model Quality
Check
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization)
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
EDAG Results
Database
and Tools
Figure 2.3-50: Full Vehicle Optimization
There are two important stages in EDAG's full vehicle optimization process: The first is
to evaluate the subsystems for subsystem level tradeoffs; the second is to integrate the
adjusted subsystems into full vehicle during the course of full-vehicle optimization.
Meeting the full vehicle target performance is still a challenge. Therefore, all the feasible
subsystems (alternatives) are included as optimization variables in the full vehicle
process. The process of exploring and identifying such feasible subsystems has been
explained in the previous Systems Alternatives section.
The full vehicle lightweight design optimization process involved identifying the
systems, components, variables, and constraints to be included in the optimization
iteration. A load path analysis (as explained in Section 7.2.4) was conducted on the
baseline model to filter out the parts of higher cross-section forces.
The optimization variables and constraints were defined as per EDAG 3GC optimization
guidelines[17' 18]. The variables were gauge (part thickness), grade (material grade), and
geometry (part shape). As previously mentioned, geometry change was not included in
the optimization; so the entire weight optimization cycle included the following steps:
• Identify subsystems
• Identify components
17 EDAG CAE Crash and Safety Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov 2010
18 EDAG CAE NVH Modeling Guidelines Revision 2.0 Nov 2010
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
JuneS, 2015
Page 138
Select optimization variables including subsystem alternatives
Setup optimization model
Perform computer automated optimization
Extract optimized design variables (response surface)
Validate optimized results
2.3.2.4.3.1 Gauge and Grade Optimization Model
A commercially available computerized optimization tool called HEEDS MDO was used
to build the optimization model. The model consisted of 408 design variables, eight
loadcases (two NVH + six crash), and one cost evaluation. The design variables included
192 gauge variables and 192 grade variables for the identified parts of frame, cabin, and
cargo box. The optimization model also included 24 subsystem alternatives (by utilizing
HSS/AHSS, aluminum, and TRB). The loadcases selected for optimization were frontal
impact with a flat rigid wall barrier, frontal impact with ODB, side impact with MDB,
side impact with pole, roof crush, and rear impact. These loadcases were linked in the
optimization process in a logical order of structural and crash requirement targets. The
optimization tool was setup in such a way as to choose the subsystems iteratively. A
typical optimization model built in the HEEDS modeler is shown in Figure 2.3-40 and
Figure 2.3-51.
Figure 2.3-51: Full Vehicle Optimization Model Built in HEEDS
From Figure 2.3-51 it can be observed that the full vehicle process includes NVH
loadcases as well as crash loadcases, arranged from most critical to less critical in terms
of performance metrics. BIW model for NVH loadcase was assembled by selecting the
BIW subsystems from the pool of feasible designs. The assembled BIW model was
subjected to further gauge changes by the automated algorithm. Similarly, the BIW
model for crash loadcases was assembled by selecting the BIW subsystems. The
remaining systems and subsystems, i.e., closures, engine, transmission, and other
components which are deemed to influence the performance, were then assembled
together with the BIW model to build the full vehicle crash model. The crash model was
subjected to further grade and gauge changes by the automated algorithm.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 139
The computerized optimization techniques are good choices to achieve any full vehicle
trade off analysis in a given time period. It needs shorter range of parameter variations for
faster convergence. For this purpose the grade and gauge ranges determined from the
subsystem analysis stage were used in the full vehicle optimization. Similarly, the
material grades were grouped based on application and manufacturing factors of the
parts. Table 2.3-6 shows material variations in the optimization cycle. Four different
material sets were created in such a way that, the grade variation was limited to the
assigned sets only.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 140
Table 2.3-6: Material Grades Variations
erial Grade
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MILD 140/270
IF 140/270
BH 2 10/340
BH 260/370
BH 280/400
DP300/500
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 60/980
DP 700/1000
CP 800/1000
MS 950/1200
CP 1000/1200
CP 1050/14750
HF 1050-1500
MS 1150-1400
MS 1250-1500
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 141
Material Set 1 included the materials from 1-11 in Table 2.3-6, Set 2 from 5-14, Set 3
from 10-22 and Set 4 from 16-24. Sets 1 and 2 were assigned for relatively large panel
parts, Set 3 was assigned for the critical parts in the load path such as front rail and rear
rails, and Set 4 was assigned for B-Pillar and roof rail parts where manufacturing
alternatives were preferred.
The number of variables was also reduced by using model symmetry techniques, i.e.,
symmetrical parts share the same variables. In case of full vehicle examination, CAE
analysis time was relatively high when compared to the time taken for the algorithm itself
to analyze the results and identify the next step. Therefore, CAE models were run in
High-Performance Computing (HPC) systems. The CAE models were distributed in
multiple HPC clusters, with NVH and crash loadcase models run in separate HPC
systems.
The objective, constraints, and responses considered for this optimization model are
found in Table 2.3-7.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 142
Table 2.3-7: Initial Optimization Objective, Response, and Constraints in HEEDs MDO
Objective: Minimize Total Weight
Parameter
Bending
Stiffness
Torsional
Stiffness
Frontal Flat
Frontal ODB
Side214/IIHS
Side Pole
Roof crush
Rear Impact
Cost
Requirement Response
Disp. at Shock
tower
Disp. at Rocker
FMVSS 208 Max. Pulse
Dynamic Crush
Max. Dash Intrusion
IIHS Max. Pulse
Dynamic Crush
Max. Dash Intrusion
FMVSS 21 4 / intrusion Gap
IIHS
FMVSS 21 4 intrusion Gap
Oblique5th
FMVSS 21 6A Max. Load
FMVSS 301 Zonel Deformation
Zone2 Deformation
Total Material Cost
Constraints/
Target
< 0.36mm
< 0.69mm
38-41 G
< 750 mm
< 100mm
38-41 G
< 750 mm
< 150 mm
> 125 mm
> 125 mm
>72,000 N
< 125 mm
< 350 mm
<$1200
(+10%)
Table 2.3-7 continued next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 143
Table 2.3-7: Initial Optimization Objective, Response, and Constraints in HEEDs MDO cont'd
Side 21 4/1 IMS
Side Pole
Roof crush
Rear Impact
Cost
! FMVSS214/
IIHS
! FMVSS214
I Oblique5th
FMVSS216A
| FMVSS 301
Intrusion Gap
Intrusion Gap
Max. Load
Zonel Deformation
Zone2 Deformation
Total Material Cost
> 125 mm
> 125 mm
>72,000 N
< 125 mm
< 350 mm
<$ 1200 (+10%)
2.3.2.4.3.2 Gauge and Grade Optimization Response Surface
The optimizer was set to 500 design iterations with the objective of minimizing the total
weight. The optimizer was checked for convergence of the solution in the course of the
optimization cycle. After 13 design cycles (24 designs in the first cycle and 20 designs
per subsequent cycles), a response surface of 264 designs was found. The response
surface obtained for all the loadcases was investigated to determine the best optimized
design. Figure 2.3-52 shows the response surface output of the optimization cycle for
NVH, frontal and side crash loadcases. The remaining loadcases responses have been
masked to make the optimized design visible.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 144
slverado_md_opt: Response Surface
1 -i
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4-
0.2-
0 -I
• mass_total vs.
• mass.totalvs
» massjotal vs
A mass_total vs.
o massjotal vs.
Q mass_total vs.
mass.total vs.
mass.total vs.
mass_total vs.
mass_tota) vs.
mass_total vs.
mass_totalvs
mass_total vs.
mass_total vs.
D mass_totsl vs.
a mass_total vs.
A mass_total vs.
A mass_total vs.
A mass_total vs.
» mass_total vs.
• Best Design
B Basdne
toadmax
pUse.odb
foot_intru2
toe_l_ntru2
toe_c_intru2
toe_r_ntru2
pube_flat
feot.ntrul
toej.cntrul
toe_c_ntrul
toe_r_ntrul
b_ntru
rear_mtrul
rear_rtru2
rear_ritru3
zonel_ntnj
zone2_ntru
Z_Dsp>ft
2_Disp_right
cost
1.97
1.99
2.02
mass_total
Figure 2.3-52: Response Surface Output from Optimizer
2.3.2.4.3.3 Gauge and Grade Optimization Results
The optimizer returned the optimized set of design variables and the mass optimized
NVH and crash models for bending, torsion, frontal impact, frontal ODB, side impact
MDB, side impact pole, roof crush resistance, and rear impact models. The responses
output by the optimizer, however, were mathematically predicted. As a result, further
CAE simulations were performed using the optimized model to confirm the predicted
optimum design met the targets.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 145
2.3.2.4.3.4 Human Intelligence
While the subsystem analysis and full vehicle integrated optimization can be carried out
in an automated way using commercially available software, engineering judgment of the
external variations of subsystems or components was also a key part of the optimization
process. During the execution of evaluation cycles, the CAE model updates were
monitored and examined. Any anticipated design changes of the parts influenced by
engineering judgment for higher weight reduction potential. The inclusion of new
information from the OEMs or the results of other loadcases externally run for
verification were updated in the evaluation cycles. It is part of the optimization process
that updated iterations (FE model or variables range) were injected as new inputs to the
algorithm.
2.3.2.4.3.5 Design and Manufacturing Consideration
Similar to the subsystem analysis, full vehicle analysis results were further subjected to
more weight reduction techniques. The performance levels of the feasible full vehicle
models were studied with respect to design and manufacturing feasibilities. Product
development expertise, best practices along with engineering judgment could influence
the following weight reduction strategies:
• Update the joining technologies
• Update alternative materials options
• Update manufacturing alternatives
Joining: Certain areas of the cabin assembly, converting spot welds to laser welds helped
to improve the NVH performance and lead to weight reduction potential.
Material: When the vehicle was investigated in areas where grade and gauge were greatly
changed by the analysis, there was still an avenue for weight reduction potential by
choosing alternative materials appropriately. The choice of aluminum for the radiator
structure not only helped to reduce the weight, but also helped to eliminate multiple sheet
metal parts.
Manufacturing: Change of manufacturing techniques was found to be another important
weight-reduction option. Hot stamping versus cold stamping, tailored blank versus
single-thickness blank are two of commonly used techniques. Taking into consideration
the upgrade of the materials and thickness changes of the parts and parts elimination, the
manufacturing choices were investigated by iterating the CAE models for all the
loadcases. From the cost impact point of view, a balance between cost increase due to
manufacturing and weight reduction was monitored as part of this stage of the
optimization process. In the case where conventional stamped B-Pillar parts were
optimized with hot stamped parts of higher material grade (HF1000/1500), the increase in
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 146
cost was neutralized by utilizing the TRB parts, which helped to combine the extra B-
Pillar inner reinforcements into one B-Pillar inner part, less in assembly cost.
2.3.2.4.3.6 Designs Selection
The ultimate objective of the optimization process is to obtain an optimized design that is
cost effective, light-weight and meets the performance requirements. The set of design
evaluations from the full vehicle optimization is analyzed to choose the realistic design.
EDAG's approach of selecting the best design from the design evaluations is
schematically shown in Figure 2.3-53. The green dots depict the feasible designs
generated by the optimization tool HEEDS MDO. The area where human intelligence
(engineering judgment, best practices and product development expertise) was applied is
shown by green box and the area of best designs within this region based on the
performance criteria is shown by the blue circle. The final optimized design selected
based on the selection criteria is encircled within the area of best designs.
Minimize Weight
• •
».*»
&
* • •
* •
••
•
•
: «•
M
UO
Figure 2.3-53: Design Selection
2.3.2.4.3.7 Strategy Analysis
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 147
An important characteristic of this optimization process is the option to extract and
analyze data from the evaluation cycles. The results in each stage are one optimized
design, and a set of feasible designs including the corresponding parameters such as
material grade, gauge, parts shape, weight, and performance metrics. A visual way of
analyzing the data is to plot the weight reductions versus the performance and costs.
Therefore, for each weight reduction strategy, the amount of weight opportunity of each
subsystem and full vehicle are plotted with respect to its corresponding performance
improvement and full vehicle costs. Each weight strategy is analyzed for the performance
improvements against the weight opportunity amount with respect to that of the full
vehicle. During the course of the optimization, the weight reduction strategies which are
consistent with the full vehicle targets are applied on the latest design and injected as new
inputs. The weight reductions of several subsystems for each strategy are shown in the
plots in the Appendix Section 7.2.5.
Table 2.3-8 and its corresponding scatter plot in Figure 2.3-54 show the weight
reduction and global performance level for each strategy.
Table 2.3-8: Strategy Analysis
NO.
: *
2(«)
A
4(x)
51 '
6(*
Strategy
Gauge and Grade
2 + Eng. Expertise
Gauge Opt
TRBand Laser Weld
DM Feasible
Full Vehicle
Performance (%)
10.9%
•
-0.2%
Weight (kg)
-13.8
-123.3
139.0
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 148
-296
1
I
V
2
Full Vehicle
0% 2% 496 696 896 1096 1296
A A -A A **** i i i i i i
V.V 1
-50.0 -
-100.0
X
-150.0
-200.0 -
•250.0
-300.0 -
r \J.\J\J B
1 -13.8
A -59.9
-123.3
X -139.0
• -235.0
-1- -265.0
Performance
Figure 2.3-54: Strategy Analysis
From the preceding illustrations, it can be observed that the gauge-only variation could
yield considerable weight reduction, but could also result in the degradation of the
vehicle performance. As part of EDAG's best practice for the light weighting process, an
initial 5% higher performance target was established and considered a better
methodology for the tradeoff process. The choice of gauge only optimization (illustrated
as 4(x)) also might not reveal the full potential of weight reduction as seen by a negative
trend in performance. Utilizing material upgrades (mainly steel) in the gauge
optimization could greatly improve the performance due to HSS and AHSS
characteristics and also lower weight saving (illustrated as 2(B)). The performance
improvement of 10.9% by utilizing HSS and AHSS shows more opportunity to reduce
weight. Therefore, the remaining strategies played important roles in the collaborative
optimization. Higher weight reductions were achieved systematically stage by stage.
Looking at the cost impact in each strategy, the optimized design was selected where the
performance target of 5% improvement was met and a near 20% mass reduction
achieved.
2.3.2.4.3.8 Cost Constraints
Material cost calculation was always part of the process. Cost was included as key output
in both subsystem and full vehicle integrated optimization. In the first two stages (Stage 1
- Subsystem analysis, and Stage 2 - Full vehicle integrated analysis) of the optimization
process, the computerized optimization tools were configured with internally developed
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 149
cost calculation subroutines by using the material grade and gauge change data. In these
stages, the manufacturing costs, and assembly cost, were assumed to be same as the
baseline and only material cost was used as the constraint. In the next two stages (Stage 3
- Human intelligence, and Stage 4 - Additional weight reduction strategies), the cost
impact was included for manufacturing feasibility assessment.
The overall weight reduction opportunities by each strategy with respect to the average
cost i.e., cost increase per kilogram weight saving was analyzed. The weight reduction
opportunity analysis is illustrated in Figure 2.3-55.
Full Vehicle Weight Reduction Cost Impact
•2%
4*
6S
ION
12*
1
|
-500
-1000
•
-1500
-1628
•2000
•2500
-3000
-138
A -599
-1233
< -1390
SdOO)
5(200)
$(300)
i(400)
S(SOO)
$(600)
Peilotmtnff
5(700)
Figure 2.3-55: Design Selection
Having a target weight reduction of at least 20% and performance improvement of 5% or
higher, the possible light-weight designs are shown in the shaded area. There are two
designs found for more than 20% weight reduction and 5% or higher performance targets.
Out of these two designs, the one with the lower cost/kg, (235 kg savings) is selected as
the optimized final design. Additional details on the EDAG costing methodology are
found in Section 2.4.2, Body and Frame Evaluation Group - Cost Modeling Details.
2.4 Cost Modeling Details
The costs developed in this analysis are referred to as Net Incremental Direct
Manufacturing Costs (NIDMCs). The NIDMCs are the incremental differences in cost of
components and assembly to the OEM, between the mass-reduced technology
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 150
configuration and the baseline technology configuration. This includes both external
costs, for purchased components and assemblies from suppliers, as well as internal costs
for manufacturing operations performed by the OEM.
The cost elements included in a standard NIDMC model are broken out into three
categories (Figure 2.4-1). Total Manufacturing Cost (TMC) includes material, labor and
manufacturing overhead cost contributions. The mark-up costs include end-item scrap
expenses, selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and engineering,
design, and testing (ED&T) expenses. The final category is packaging costs.
Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Costs
Total Manufacturing Costs
Material
Labor
Manufacturing
Overhead
Mark-Up
End-Item
Scrap
SG&A
Profit
ED&T
Packaging
Supplier
OEM
Figure 2.4-1: Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost Elements
For the purpose of this mass reduction analysis, component/assembly packaging costs
were considered to be neutral due to the relative size envelope of these parts not changing
significantly between the production stock and mass-reduced parts.
The cost models for both the supplier and OEM manufactured components, assemblies
and systems, included material, labor and manufacturing overhead cost contributions. In
the supplier manufactured components/assemblies, mark-up was also accounted for in the
NIDMC models. However in the OEM NIDMC models, mark-up contributions were not
included. This has been standard protocol for all costing studies conducted by FEV for
the EPA. The OEM mark-up/indirect manufacturing costs are accounted for by applying
an indirect cost multiplier (ICM) to the final summation of NIDMCs. The product of
NIDMCs, and applicable ICMs, equals the incremental cost of the new technology to the
end consumer under the assumed project boundary conditions.
When differences in the boundary conditions are considered, additional adjustments to
the NIDMCs are required. For EPA studies this is accomplished with the application of
Learning/Experience Factors (LFs). In this analysis, only supplier and OEM NIDMCs are
calculated. The application of ICMs and LFs are outside the project scope (Figure 2.4-2).
Additional details on the application of ICMs and Learning Factors can be found in the
EPA and NHTSA Joint Final Rule, "2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards."
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 151
Incremental Cost To End _ F j Supplier NIDMC(TMC + Markup* Packaging) + £ OEM NIDMC (TMC + Packaging H x ICM X LF
Consumer for Vehicle
Mass Reduction
Figure 2.4-2: Mass Reductions Costs Included in the Analysis
The remainder of Section 2.4 covers additional details on the cost modeling portion of the
analysis. The same general costing methodology and assumptions were applicable to all
vehicle systems evaluated; however, the costing tools differed between the Powertrain,
Chassis, and Trim Evaluation Group and the Body and Frame Costing Group.
For the Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim Evaluation Group, costing tools developed by FEV
and Munro were utilized. These were the same tools used in the Midsize CUV report
(EPA Report #: EPA-420-R-12-026, "Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost
Analysis-Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle") as well as numerous other advance light-
duty powertrain technology cost assessments recently completed for both government
and commercial institutions. For the Body and Frame Evaluation Group, incremental
costs were estimated using the Technical Cost Modeling (TCM) approach developed by
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). EDAG had employed these same tools
in the Venza mass reduction and cost assessment, and in prior studies including the
Future Steel Vehicle Phase 1 and Phase 2 analyses. As part, the Venza mass reduction
and cost analysis project, the two cost modeling approaches were checked using several
BIW component examples to ensure there was good correlation between the results using
the two different costing tools. The two report sections that follow discuss the
Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim Evaluation Group - Cost Modeling Details (Section
2.4.1), and the Body and Frame Evaluation Group - Costing Modeling Details (Section
2.4.2).
2.4.1 Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation - Cost Modeling Details
The costing methodology used to support the Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim evaluation
group consisted of four main process steps, as illustrated in Figure 2.4-3. Step 1 defined
the cost analysis boundary conditions. The boundary conditions are critical for
establishing a consistent framework for comparison, ensuring all vehicle systems for both
the current production technology as well as the mass-reduced technology are costed with
the same assumptions (e.g., volume, manufacturing location, mark-up rates,
manufacturing cost structures).
Step 2 involved updating the databases and process parameter models based on the
established analysis boundary conditions. In addition new materials and processes may
have been identified in the initial teardowns and idea generation stages, which do not
currently exist in the current databases or process parameter libraries. Before costing
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 152
modeling is initiated, database and process parameter model updates are made based on
the initial assessment. Further database and process parameter model updates are made
during the cost modeling process as required.
The cost analysis begins in Step 3. Based on the type of components under evaluation,
the vehicle system team lead determines if commodity costing or detail costing is
required for each component. Commodity costing is generally reserved for low-impact
type components and/or components for which pricing exists in a commodity database of
similar components based on prior cost studies or acquired quotes. Generally,
commodity-type costing is reserved for fastening hardware (nuts, bolts, washers, seals,
etc.) and mass-produced, lower dollar value, mature components. Examples of these
types of components include standard pressure or temperature sensors, spark plugs, small
wire harnesses, suspension bushings, and isolators. Custom vehicle specific components
and/or moderate- to high-impact type components are costed using detailed cost models.
The internal steps involved in acquiring and validating commodity and detailed costs are
shown in Figure 2.4-3.
As component costs are developed, they are summed into cost model analysis templates
(CMATs) at the assembly/sub-subsystem, subsystem, and system level. For example, the
cost impact of light-weighting a connecting rod can be found in a connecting rod
assembly/sub-subsystem CMAT (010303 Connecting Rod SSSCMAT). The net cost
impact of the connecting rod and other light-weighted crank drive components (e.g.,
piston, crankshaft, flywheel) can be found in a Crank Drive Subsystem CMAT (0103
Crank Drive Subsystem SSCMAT). Finally, the net cost impact of the Crank Drive
Subsystem and other engine subsystems (e.g., Cylinder Block, Cylinder Head, Timing
Drive) can be found in an Engine System CMAT (01 Engine SCMAT). The final step
entails rolling up the mass reduction net cost impact for each vehicle system into a
vehicle level CMAT (Silverado VCMAT).
-------
Stepl
Initiation of Detailed cost
Analysis
Cost portion of Step 5 in overa
project analysis "Detailed M
Reduction Feasibility and Co
Analysis"
.
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 153
Upload Manufacturing
Assumptions & Rater
• Set defaults for databases (e.g.
production year, location, teen .
maturity etc )
• Set headers in all costing
documents identifying costing
methodology
[ Step 3 |
.
r
Initiate Commodity &
Benchmark Cost Model
Analysis
Identify Surrogate
Components in FEV
Databases for use in
Analysis
Research and Development of
Missing Manufacturing
Information <
• Process Parameter Modes
• Database Rates
V J
1
Update Database and Process
Parameter Models
V J
4
Cost Analysis
^•^^^^ Databases ^^s1
Material
[_ Labor J
F^ ^
Manufacturing
F^ ^l
Mark-up
Process Parameter Models
Initiate Detailed Cost Model
I
Detailed Disassembly of
Sub-assemblies ^ , .
• Part Disassembly Photos . A°s^
• Part Attribute Recording
I
Revise BOM with updated
Manufacturing
Assumptions
• Modifications to
flow, material selection,
etc. j
\
Necessary Information
> s. Present to Complete Cost , v
*-( No V Models \Yes/
^ ' • Process Parameter Models ^ '
exist J
ocess
ation C
nbly Of
Mapping
Reconcile Serial Process
Flows for Mass Production
(if required)
_>
1
Develop Manufacturing
Assumption - Quote
Summary (MAQS) Costing
Worksheets
j
4
Develop Assembly /Sub-
subsystem level Cost Model
Analysis Template (CMAT)
LEGEND
C-BOM = Comparison Bill of Materials
SME = Subject Matter Expert
MAQS = Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary Worksheet
CMAT = Cost Model Analysis Template
Scaling Factor Development
(If Applicable)
Develop cost scaling
factors for custom
components
Application of Scaling
Factors (If Applicable)
Apply scaling factors to
selected custom
components
SME Validation
Customer, Supplier, SME
Databases, Published
Develop Subsystem and
System level Cost Model
Analysis Templates (CMAT)
Develop Vehicle level Cost
Model Analysis Template
(CMAT)
Develop Mass-Reduction
Cost Curves
Figure 2.4-3: Cost Methodology Steps for Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group
In the final step, Step 4, developed costs are plotted from best to least value in terms of
costs per kilogram of mass reduction. The objective of which was to determine the
average cost per kilogram of mass reduction at various levels of vehicle mass reduction
up through 20%. A secondary objective was to evaluate the benefit of secondary mass-
savings relative to average cost per kilogram for mass reduction.
In the sections which follow, additional details are provided on the four steps relative to
methodology and tools utilized.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 154
2.4.1.1 Step 1: Costing Boundary Conditions
For both the baseline Chevrolet Silverado components and the new mass-reduced
replacement components the same universal set of boundary conditions 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 Silverado components) or the mass-reduced components. The same
product maturity levels, manufacturing cost structure (e.g., production volume,
manufacturing location, and manufacturing period), and market conditions exist for both
technologies. This common framework for costing permits reliable comparison of costs
between new mass-reduced components and baseline production stock Chevrolet
Silverado components. In addition, having a good understanding of the analysis boundary
conditions (i.e., what assumptions made in the analysis, the methodology utilized, what
parameters included in the final numbers, etc.), a fair and meaningful comparison can be
made between results developed from alternative costing methodologies and/or sources.
Table 2.4-1 captures the primary universal cost analysis assumptions which are
applicable to both the new and baseline configurations evaluated in the analysis. The
assumptions are applicable to the vehicle systems included in the Powertrain, Chassis,
and Trim as well as the Body and Frame Evaluation Groups.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 155
Table 2.4-1: Universal Case Study Assumption Utilized in the Mass Reduction Analysis
Item
Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing
Costs (MDMC)
(Included in the analysis)
Incremental Indirect OEM Costs
(Not included within the scope of this cost
analysis)
Description
A.Net 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 Chevrolet Silverado
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.).
Incremental Production Tooling Costs
(Included in the analysis)
Product/Technology Maturity Level
Universal Case Study Assumptions
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
3. Reference EPA report EPA-420-R-09-003, 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 and NHTSA Joint Final Rule "2017 and Later
Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards", Federal Register /
Vol. 77, No. 199/Monday, October 15, 2012 /Rules and
Regulations (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-
21972.pdf) for additional details on the develop and application of
ICM and learning factors.
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
Silverado components/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.
A. Mature technology assumption, as defined within this analysis,
includes the following:
a. Well developed product design
b. High production volume (+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.
Table 2.4-1 continued next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 156
Table 2.4-1: (Cont'd) Universal Case Study Assumption Utilized in the Mass Reduction Analysis
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.
450,000 Vehicles
United States of America
United States of America
2012/201 3 Production 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. T 1 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 / carrying 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.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 157
2.4.1.2 Step 2: Databases and Process Parameter Models
Figure 2.4.1 highlights the three main cost element categories that make up the NIDMCs
for all components and assemblies in the analysis. Every cost element used throughout
the analysis is extracted from one of the core databases. There are the databases for
material prices ($/kilogram), labor rates ($/hour), manufacturing overhead rates ($/hour),
mark-up rates (% of TMC), and packaging ($/packaging option). The databases provide
the foundation of the cost analysis, since all costs originate from them. They are also used
to document sources and supporting information for the cost numbers.
The model allows for updates to the cost elements, which automatically roll into the
individual component/assembly cost models. Since all cost sheets and parameters are
directly linked to the databases, changing any of the "Active Rate" cost elements in the
applicable database automatically updates the cost model worksheets [i.e., Manufacturing
Assumption Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheets]. Thus, if a material doubles in price,
one can easily assess the impact on the technology configurations under study.
2.4.1.2.1 Material Database
The Material Database houses specific material prices and related material information
required for component cost estimating analysis. The information related to each material
listed includes the material name, standard industry identification (e.g., AISI or SAE
nomenclature), typical automotive applications, pricing per kilogram, annual
consumption rates, and source references. The prices recorded in the database are in U.S.
dollars per kilogram.
Material Selection Process
The materials listed in the database (resins, ferrous, and non-ferrous alloys) are used in
the products and components selected for cost analysis. The materials identification
process was based on visual part markings, part appearance, manufacturing method, and
part application. Material markings are the most obvious method of material
identification. Resin components typically have material markings (e.g., >PA66 30GF<)
which were easily identified, recorded in the database, and researched to establish price
trends.
For components which were not marked, such as transmission gears, suspension
knuckles, engine connecting rods, and the like, the FEV and Munro cross-functional team
members and contracted subject matter experts (SME) were consulted in the materials
identification. For any material still not identified, information published in print and on
the web was researched, or primary manufacturers and experts within the Tier 1 supplier
community were contacted to establish credible material choices.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 158
The specific application and the part appearance play a role in materials identification.
Steels commonly referred to as work-hardenable steels with high manganese content
(13% Mn) are readily made in a casting and are not forgeable. Therefore, establishing
whether a component is forged or casted can narrow the materials identification process.
Observing visual cues on components can be very informative. Complex part geometry
alone can rule out the possibility of forgings; however, more subtle differences must be
considered. For example, forged components typically have a smoother appearance in the
grain whereas cast components have a rougher finish, especially in the areas where
machining is absent. Castings also usually display evidence of casting flash.
The component application environment will also help determine material choice. There
are, for example, several conventional ductile cast iron applications found in base
gasoline engines that are moving to high silicon-molybdenum ductile or Ductile Ni-
Resist cast irons in downsized turbocharged engines. This is due to high temperature,
thermal cycling, and corrosion resistance demands associated with elevated exhaust gas
temperatures in turbocharged engines. Therefore, understanding the part application and
use environment can greatly assist in achieving more accurate material determinations.
Pricing Sources and Considerations
The pricing data housed in the database was derived from various sources of publicly
available data from which historical trend data could be derived. The objective was to
find historical pricing data over as many years as possible to obtain the most accurate
trend response. Ferrous and non-ferrous alloy pricing involved Internet searches of
several sources, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), MEPS (previously
Management Engineering & Production Services), Metal-Pages, London Metal
Exchange, estainlesssteel.com, and Longbow.
Resin pricing was also obtained from sources such as Plastics News, Plastics Technology
Online, Rubber and Plastics News, and IDES (Integrated Design Engineering Systems).
Several other sources are used in this research as outlined in the database.
Though material prices are often published for standard materials, prices for specialized
material formulations and/or those having a nonstandard geometric configuration (e.g.,
length, width, thickness, cross-section) are not typically available. Where pricing is not
available for a given material with a known composition, two approaches were used:
industry consultation and composition analysis.
Industry consultation mainly takes the form of discussions with subject matter experts
familiar with the material selection and pricing used in the products under evaluation to
acquiring formal quotes from raw material suppliers.
In those cases where published pricing data was unavailable and raw material supplier
quotes could not be acquired, a composition analysis was used. This was achieved by
building prices based on element composition and applying a processing factor (i.e.,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 159
market price/material composition cost) derived from a material within the same material
family. The calculated price was compared to other materials in the same family as a
means to ensure the calculated material price was directionally correct.
Obtaining prices for unknown proprietary material compositions, such as powder metals,
necessitated a standardized industry approach. In these cases, manufacturers and industry
market research firms are consulted to provide generic pricing formulas and pricing
trends. Their price formulas are balanced against published market trends of similar
materials to establish new pricing trends.
Resin formulations are also available with a variety of fillers and filler content. Some
pricing data is available for specific formulations; however, pricing is not published for
every variation. This variation is significant since many manufacturers can easily tailor
resin filler type and content to serve the specific application. Consequently the database
has been structured to group resins, with common filler, into ranges of filler content. For
example, glass-filled Nylon 6 is grouped into three categories: 0% to 15% glass-filled,
30% to 35% glass-filled, and 50% glass-filled, each with their own price point. These
groupings provide a single price point as the price differential within a group (0% to 15%
glass-filled) is not statistically significant.
In-process Scrap
In-process scrap is defined as the raw material mass, beyond the final part weight,
required to manufacture a component. For example, in an injection molded part, the in-
process scrap is typically created from the delivery system of the molten plastic into the
part cavity (e.g., sprue, runners and part gate). This additional material is trimmed off
following part injection from the mold. In some cases, dependent on the material and
application, a portion of this material can be ground up and returned into the virgin
material mix.
In the case of screw machine parts, the in-process scrap is defined as the amount of
material removed from the raw bar stock in the process of creating the part features.
Generally, material removed during the various machining processes is sold at scrap
value. Within this cost analysis study, no considerations were made to account for
recovering scrap costs with the excpetion of wrough aluminum and magnesium.
A second scrap parameter accounted for in the cost analysis is end-item scrap. End-item
scrap is captured as a cost element within mark-up and will be discussed in more detail
within the mark-up database section. Although, it is worth reiterating here that in-process
scrap only covers the additional raw material mass required for manufacturing a part, it
does not include an allowance for quality defects, rework costs and/or destructive test
parts. These costs are covered by the end-item scrap allowance.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 160
Purchase Parts - Commodity Parts
Many of the parts considered to be purchased are simple standard fasteners (nuts, bolts,
screws, washers, clips, hose clamps) and seals (gaskets, O-rings). However, in certain
cases, more value-added components are considered purchased when sufficient data
existed supporting their cost as a commodity: that is, where competitive or other forces
drive these costs to levels on the order of those expected had these parts been analyzed
using the detailed cost models.
In the MAQS worksheet, standard purchase parts costs are binned to material costs,
which, in the scope of this analysis, are generally understood to be raw material costs. If
the purchase part content for a particular assembly or system is high in dollar value, the
calculated cost breakdown in the relevant elements (i.e., material, labor, manufacturing
overhead, mark-up) tended to be misleading. That is the material content would show
artificially inflated because of the high dollar value of purchase part content.
To try and minimize this cost binning error, purchase parts with a value in the range of
$10 to $15, or greater, were broken into the standard cost elements using cost element
ratios developed for surrogate type parts. For example, assume a detailed cost analysis is
conducted on a roller bearing assembly, "Bearing A." The ratio of material, labor,
manufacturing overhead, and mark-up, as a percent of the selling price, can easily be
calculated. Knowing the commodity selling price for a similar type of bearing assembly,
"Bearing B," along with the cost element ratios developed for "Bearing A," estimates can
be made on the material, labor, manufacturing overhead, and mark-up costs for "Bearing
B."
Purchased part costs are obtained from a variety of sources. These include FEV and
Munro team members' industry cost knowledge and experience, surrogate component
costing databases, Tier 1 supplier networks, published information, and service part cost
information.
2.4.1.2.2 Labor Database
The Labor Database contains all the standard occupations and associated labor rates
required to manufacture automotive parts and vehicles. All labor rates referenced
throughout the cost analysis are referenced from the established Labor Database.
Hourly wage rate data used throughout the study, with exception of fringe and wage
projection parameters, is acquired from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). For the
analysis, mean hourly wage rates were chosen for each occupation, representing an
average wage across the United States.
The Labor Database is broken into two primary industry sections, Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing (supplier base) and Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (OEMs). These two
industry sections correspond to the BLS, North American Industry Classification System
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 161
(NAICS) 336300 and 336100 respectively. Within each industry section of the database,
there is a list of standard production occupations taken from the BLS Standard
Occupation Classification (SOC) system. For reference, the base SOC code for
production occupations within the Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing and Motor Vehicle
Manufacturing is 51-0000. Every production occupation listed in the Labor Database has
a calculated labor rate, as discussed in more detail below. For the Chevrolet Silverado
mass reduction and cost analysis study, 2012 rates were used (2012 rates published in
May 2013).
Direct Versus Total Labor, Wage Versus Rate
Each standard production occupation found in the Labor Database has an SOC
identification number, title, labor description, and mean hourly wage taken directly from
the BLS.
Only "direct" production occupations are listed in the labor database. Team assemblers
and forging, cutting, punching, and press machine operators are all considered direct
production occupations. There are several tiers of manufacturing personnel supporting
the direct laborers that need to be accounted for in the total labor costs, such as quality
technicians, process engineers, lift truck drivers, millwrights, and electricians. A method
typically used by the automotive industry to account for all of these additional "indirect
labor" costs - and the one chosen for this cost analysis - is to calculate the contribution
of indirect labor as an average percent of direct labor, for a given production occupation,
in a given industry sector.
The BLS Database provides labor wage data, rather than labor rate data. In addition to
what a direct laborer is paid, there are several additional expenses the employer must
cover in addition to the employee base wage. This analysis refers to these added
employer expenditures as "fringe." Fringe is applicable to all employees and will be
discussed in greater detail following.
It should be noted that the BLS motor vehicle and motor vehicle parts manufacturing
(NAICS 336100 & 336300) labor rates include union and non-union labor rates,
reflecting the relative mix of each in the workforce at the time the data was gathered
(2012).
Contributors to Labor Rate and Labor Rate Equation
The four contributors to labor costs used in this study are:
Direct Labor (DIR) is the mean manufacturing labor wage directly associated with
fabricating, finishing, and/or assembling a physical component or assembly. Examples
falling into this labor classification include injection mold press operators, die cast press
operators, heat treat equipment operators, team/general assemblers, computer numerical
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 162
controlled (CNC) machine operators, and stamping press operators. The median labor
wage for each direct labor title is also included in the database. These values are treated
as reference only.
Indirect Labor (IND) is the manufacturing labor indirectly associated with making a
physical component or assembly. Examples include material handling personnel,
shipping and receiving personnel, quality control technicians, first-line supervisors, and
manufacturing/process engineers. For a selected industry sector (such as injection
molding, permanent casting, or metal stamping), an average ratio of indirect to direct
labor costs can be derived from which the contribution of indirect labor ($/hour) can be
calculated.
This ratio is calculated as follows:
1. An industry sector is chosen from the BLS, NAIC System, (e.g., Plastics
Product Manufacturing NAICS 326100).
2. Within the selected industry sector, occupations are sorted (using SOC
codes) into one of the four categories: Direct Labor, Indirect Labor, MRO
Labor, or Other.
3. For each category (excluding "Other") a total cost/hour is calculated by
summing up the population weighted cost per hour rates, for the SOC codes
within each labor category.
4. Dividing the total indirect labor costs by total direct labor costs, the
industry sector ratio is calculated.
5. When multiple industries employ the same type direct laborer, as defined
by NAICS, a weighted average of indirect to direct is calculated using the
top three industries.
Maintenance Repair and Other (MRO) is the labor required to repair and maintain
manufacturing equipment and tools directly associated with manufacturing a given
component or assembly. Examples falling into this labor classification include
electricians, pipe fitters, millwrights, and on-site tool and die tradesmen. Similar to
indirect labor, an average ratio of MRO to direct labor costs can be derived from which
the contribution of MRO labor ($/hour) can be calculated. The same process used to
calculate the indirect labor ratio is also used for the MRO ratio.
Fringe (FR) is all the additional expenses a company must pay for an employee above
and beyond base wage. Examples of expenses captured as part of fringe include company
medical and insurance benefits, pension/retirement benefits, government directed
benefits, vacation and holiday benefits, shift premiums, and training.
Fringe applies to all manufacturing employees. Therefore the contribution of fringe to the
overall labor rate is based on a percentage of direct, indirect and MRO labor. Two fringe
rates are used: 52% for supplier manufacturing, and 160% for OEM manufacturing. The
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 163
supplier manufacturing fringe rate is based on data acquired from the BLS (Table 21:
Private Industry workers, full-time by industry group: employer costs per hours worked
for employee compensation and costs as a percentage of total compensation, 2004-2012).
Taking an average of the "Total Compensation" divided by "Wages and Salaries" for
manufacturing years 2008 through 2012, an average fringe rate of 52% was calculated.
Due to the dynamic change of OEM wage and benefit packages over the last few years
(2008-2012), and differences among the OEMs, no updates were made from the original
OEM fringe assumptions developed for the initial "Light-Duty Technology Cost Analysis
Pilot Study" EPA-420-R-09-020 (http://www.epa.gov/OMS/climate/420r09020.pdf). The
OEM fringe rate utilized throughout the analysis was 160%.
2.4.1.2.3 Manufacturing Overhead Database
The Manufacturing Overhead Database contains several manufacturing overhead rates
(also sometimes referred to as "burden rates," or simply as "burden") associated with
various types of manufacturing equipment that are required to manufacture automotive
parts and vehicles. Combined with material and labor costs, it creates the total
manufacturing cost (TMC) to manufacture a component or assembly. Manufacturing
equipment is typically one of the largest contributors to manufacturing overhead, so
manufacturing overhead rates are categorized according to primary manufacturing
processes and the associated equipment as:
1. The first tier of the Manufacturing Overhead Database is arranged by the primary
manufacturing process groups (e.g., thermoplastic molding, thermoset molding,
castings, forgings, stamping and forming, powder metal, machining, turning).
2. The second tier subdivides the primary manufacturing process groups into primary
processing equipment groups. For example the 'turning group' consists of several
subgroups including some of the following: (1) CNC turning, auto bar fed, dual
axis machining, (2) CNC turning, auto bar fed, quad axis machining, (3) CNC
turning, auto bar fed, dual axis machining, double-sided part, and (4) CNC
turning, auto bar fed, quad axis machining, double-sided part.
3. The third and final tier of the database increases the resolution of the primary
processing equipment groups and defines the applicable manufacturing overhead
rates. For example, within the "CNC turning, auto bar fed, dual axis machining"
primary process equipment group, there are four available machines sizes (based
on maximum cutting diameter and part length) from which to choose. The added
resolution is typically based on part size and complexity and the need for
particular models/versions of primary and secondary processing equipment.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 164
Manufacturing Overhead Rate Contributors and Calculations
In this analysis burden is defined in terms of an "inclusion/exclusion" list as follows:
Burden costs do not include:
• manufacturing material costs
• manufacturing labor costs
o direct labor
o indirect labor
o maintenance repair and other (MRO) labor
• mark-up
o end-item scrap
o corporate SG&A expenses
o profit
o ED&T/R&D costs expenses
• tooling (e.g., mold, dies, gauges, fixtures, dedicated pallets )
• packaging costs
• external shipping and handling costs
Burden costs do include:
• rented and leased equipment
• primary and secondary process support manufacturing equipment depreciation
• plant office equipment depreciation
• utilities expense
• insurance costs (fire and general)
• municipal taxes
• plant floor space (equipment and plant offices)
• maintenance of manufacturing equipment (non-labor)
• maintenance of manufacturing building (general, internal and external, parts, and
labor)
• operating supplies (consumables)
• perishable and supplier-owned tooling
• all other plant wages (excluding direct, indirect and MRO labor)
• returnable dunnage maintenance (includes allowance for cleaning and repair)
• intra-company shipping costs
As shown, burden includes both fixed and variable costs. Generally, the largest
contribution to the fixed burden costs are the investments associated with primary and
secondary process support equipment. The single largest contributor to the variable
burden rate is typically utility usage.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 165
Acquiring Manufacturing Overhead Data
Because there is very limited publicly available data on manufacturing overhead rates for
the industry sectors included in this analysis, overhead rates have been developed from a
combination of internal knowledge and experience at FEV and Munro, supplier networks,
miscellaneous publications, reverse costing exercises, and "ground-up" manufacturing
overhead calculations.
For ground-up calculations, a generic "Manufacturing Overhead Calculator Template"
was created. The template consists of eight sections:
• General Manufacturing Overhead Information
• Primary Process Equipment
• Process Support Equipment
• General Plant & Office Hardware/Equipment
• Facilities Cost
• Utilities
• Plant Salaries
• Calculated Hourly Burden Rate
The hourly burden rate calculation for a 500 ton (T) injection mold machine is used as an
example in the following paragraphs. The General Manufacturing Overhead Information
section, in addition to defining the burden title (Injection Molding, Medium Size and/or
Moderate Complexity) and description (Injection Molding Station, 500T Press), also
defines the equipment life expectancy (12 years), yearly operating capacity (4,700 hours),
operation efficiency (85%), equipment utilization (81.99%), and borrowing cost of
money (8%). These input variables support many of the calculations made throughout the
costing template.
The Primary Process Equipment section (500T Horizontal Injection Molding Machine)
calculates the annual expense ($53,139) associated with equipment depreciation over the
defined life expectancy. A straight-line-depreciation method, with zero end of life value,
is assumed for all equipment. Included in the cost of the base equipment are several
factors such as sales tax, freight, installation, and insurance. In addition, a maintenance,
repair and other (MRO) expense (other than MRO labor, which is covered as part of the
overall labor cost), calculated as a percentage of the primary process equipment cost, is
included in the development of the manufacturing overhead.
The Process Support Equipment section (e.g., Chiller, Dryer, Thermal Control Unit-
Mold), similar to the Primary Process Equipment section, calculates the annual expense
($6,121) associated with process support equipment depreciation.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 166
The General Plant and Office Hardware/Equipment section assigns an annual
contribution directed toward covering a portion of the miscellaneous plant and office
hardware/equipment costs (e.g., millwright, electrician, and plumbing tool crib,
production/quality communication, data tracking and storage, general material handling
equipment, storage, shipping and receiving equipment, general quality lab equipment,
office equipment). The contribution expense ($2,607) is calculated as a percent of the
annual primary and process support equipment depreciation costs.
The Facilities Cost section assigns a cost based on square footage utilization for the
primary equipment ($4,807), process support equipment ($3,692), and general plant and
office hardware/equipment ($6,374). The general plant and office hardware/equipment
floor space allocation is a calculated percentage (default 75%) of the derived primary and
process support equipment floor space. The expense per square foot is $11.50 and covers
several cost categories such as facility depreciation costs, property taxes, property
insurance, general facility maintenance, and general utilities.
The Utilities section calculates a per-hour utility expense for both primary equipment
($9.29/hour) and process support equipment ($3.5I/hour) based on equipment utility
usage specifications. Some of the utility categories covered in this section include:
electricity at $0.10/kW-hr, natural gas at $0.00664/cubic foot, and water at $0.00 I/gallon.
General plant and office hardware/equipment utility expenses are covered as part of the
facility cost addressed in the previous paragraph (i.e., $11.50/square foot).
The Plant Salary section estimates the contribution of manufacturing salaries (e.g., plant
manager, production manager, quality assurance manager) assigned to the indirect
participation of primary and process support equipment. An estimate is made on the
average size of the manufacturing facility for this type of primary process equipment.
There are six established manufacturing facility sizes and corresponding salary payrolls.
Each has a calculated salary cost/square foot. Based on the combined square footage
utilization of the primary, process support, and general plant and office equipment, an
annual salary contribution cost is calculated ($6,625).
The final section, Calculated Hourly Burden Rate, takes the calculated values from the
previous sections and calculates the hourly burden rate in three steps: (1) 100% efficiency
and utilization ($30.54/hour); (2) user-defined efficiency with 100% utilization
($35.12/hour); and (3) both user-defined efficiency and utilization ($38.79/hour).
The majority of primary process equipment groups (e.g., injection molding, aluminum
die casting, forging, stamping and forming) in the manufacturing overhead database are
broken into five to ten burden rate subcategories based on processing complexity and/or
size, as discussed in the manufacturing overhead review. For any given category, there
will often be a range of equipment sizes and associated burden rates which are averaged
into a final burden rate. The goal of this averaging method is to keep the database
compact while maintaining high costing resolution.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 167
In the example of the SOOT injection molding press burden rate, the calculated rate
($38.79) was averaged with three other calculated rates (for 390T, 610T and 720T
injection mold presses) into a final burden rate called "Injection Molding, Medium Size
and/or Moderate Complexity." The final calculated burden rate of $50.58/hour is used in
applications requiring injection molding presses in the range of 400-800 tons.
The sample calculation of the manufacturing overhead rate for an injection molding
machine above is a simple example highlighting the steps and parameters involved in
calculating overhead rates. Regardless of the complexity of the operation or process, the
same methodology is employed when developing overhead rates.
As discussed, multiple methods of arriving at burden rates are used within the cost
analysis. Every attempt is made to acquire multiple data points for a given burden rate as
a means of validating the rate. In some cases, the validation is accomplished at the final
rate level and in other cases multiple pieces of input data, used in the calculation of a rate,
are acquired as a means of validation.
2.4.1.2.4 Mark-up (Scrap. SG&A. Profit ED&T) Database
All mark-up rates for Tier 1 and Tier 2/3 automotive suppliers referenced throughout the
cost analysis can be found in the Mark-up Database, except in those cases where unique
component tolerances, performance requirements, or some other unique feature dictates a
special rate. In cases where a mark-up rate is "flagged" within the costing worksheet, a
note is included which describes the assumption differences justifying the modified rate.
For this cost analysis study, four mark-up sub-categories were used in determining an
overall mark-up rate: (1) end-item scrap allowance, (2) SG&A expenses, (3) profit, and
(4) ED&T/R&D expenses. Additional details for each subcategory are discussed
following.
The layout of the Mark-up Database is similar to the Manufacturing Overhead Database
in that the first tier of the Mark-up Database is arranged by the primary manufacturing
process groups (e.g., thermoplastic processing, thermoset processing, and casting). The
second tier subdivides the primary manufacturing process groups into primary processing
equipment groups (e.g., thermoplastic processing is subdivided into injection molding,
blow or rotational molding, and pressure or vacuum form molding). The third and final
tier of the database increases the resolution of the primary processing equipment groups
and defines the applicable mark-up rates. Similar to the overhead manufacturing rates,
size and complexity of the parts being manufactured will direct the process and
equipment requirements, as well as investments. This, in turn, will have a direct
correlation to mark-up rates.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 168
Mark-up Rate Contributors and Calculations
Mark-up, in general, is an added allowance to the Total Manufacturing Cost to cover end-
item scrap, SG&A, profit and ED&T expenses. The following are additional details on
what is included in each mark-up category:
End-Item Scrap Mark-up is an added allowance to cover the projected manufacturing
fall-out and/or rework costs associated with producing a particular component or
assembly. In addition, any costs associated with in-process destructive testing of a
component or assembly are covered by this allowance. As a starting point, scrap
allowances were estimated to be between 0.3% and 0.7% of the TMC within each
primary manufacturing processing group. The actual assigned value for each category is
an estimate based on size and complexity of the primary processing equipment as shown
in Table 2.4-2.
When published industry data or consultation with an industry expert improves estimate
accuracy for scrap allowance associated with a generic manufacturing process (e.g., 5%
for sand casting, investment casting), the Mark-up Database is updated accordingly. In
cases where the manufacturing process is considered generic, but the component
performance requirements drive a higher fall-out rate (e.g., 25% combined process fallout
on turbocharger turbine wheels), then the scrap mark-up rate would only be adjusted in
the Manufacturing Assumption Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet.
Selling, General, and Administrative (SG&A) Mark-up is also referred to as corporate
overhead or non-manufacturing overhead costs. Some of the more common cost elements
of SG&A are:
• Non-manufacturing, corporate facilities (building, office equipment, utilities,
maintenance expenses, etc.)
• Corporate salaries (President, Chief Executive Officers, Chief Financial Officers,
Vice Presidents, Directors, Corporate Manufacturing, Logistics, Purchasing,
Accounting, Quality, Sales, etc.)
• Insurance on non-manufacturing buildings and equipment
• Legal and public relation expenses
• Recall insurance and warranty expenses
• Patent fees
• Marketing and advertising expenses
• Corporate travel expenses
SG&A, like all mark-up rates, is an applied percentage to the Total Manufacturing Cost.
The default rates for this cost analysis range from 6% to 7% within each of the primary
processing groups. The actual values, as with the end-item scrap allowances, vary within
these ranges based on the size and complexity of the part, which in turn is reflected in the
size and complexity of the processing equipment as shown in Table 2.4-2. To support the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 169
estimated SG&A rates (which are based on generalized OEM data), SG&A values are
extracted from publicly traded automotive supplier 10-K reports.
Profit Mark-up is the supplier's or OEM's reward for the investment risk associated with
taking on a project. On average, the higher the investment risk, the larger the profit mark-
up that is sought by a manufacturer.
As part of the assumptions list made for this cost analysis, it is assumed that the
technology being studied is mature from the development and competition standpoint.
These assumptions are reflected in the conservative profit mark-up rates which range
from 4% to 8% of the Total Manufacturing Cost. The profit mark-up ranges selected
from this cost analysis are based on generalized historical data from OEMs and suppliers.
As detailed with the preceding mark-up rates, the actual assigned percentage is based on
the supplier processing equipment size and complexity capabilities (Table 2.4-2).
ED&T Mark-up: the ED&T used for this cost analysis is a combination of "Traditional
ED&T" plus R&D mark-up.
Traditional ED&T may be defined as the engineering, design and testing activities
required to take an "implementation ready" technology and integrate it into a specific
vehicle application. The ED&T calculation is typically more straight-forward because the
tasks are predefined. R&D, defined as the cost of the research and development activities
required to create a new (or enhance an existing) component/system technology, is often
independent of a specific vehicle application. In contrast to ED&T, pure R&D costs are
very difficult to predict and are very risky from OEM and supplier perspectives in that
these costs may or may not result in a profitable outcome.
For many automotive suppliers and OEMs, traditional ED&T and R&D are combined
into one cost center. For this cost analysis, the same methodology has been adopted,
creating a combined traditional ED&T and R&D mark-up rate simply referred to as
ED&T.
Royalty fees, as the result of employing intellectual property, are also captured in the
ED&T mark-up section. When such cases exist, separate lines in the Manufacturing
Assumption & Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet are used to capture these costs.
These costs are in addition to the standard ED&T rates. The calculation of the royalty
fees are on a case by case basis and information regarding the calculation of each fee can
be found in the individual MAQS worksheets where applicable.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 170
Table 2.4-2: Standard Mark-up Rates Applied to Tier 1 and Tier 2/3 Suppliers Based on Size and
Complexity Ratings
(Primary Manufacturing Equipment
Group
Tier 2/3- Large Size, High
Complexity,
Tier 2 /3 - Medium Size, Moderate
Complexity,
Tier 2 /3 - Small Size, Low Complexity
Tier 1 Complete System/Subsystem
Supplier (System/Subsystem Integrator)
Tl High Complexity Component
Supplier
Tl Moderate Complexity Component
Supplier
Tl Low Complexity Component
Supplier
End Item
Scrap
Mark-up
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
0.7%
0.7%
0.5%
0.3%
SG&A
Mark-up
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
7.0%
7.0%
6.5%
6.0%
Profit
Mark-up
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
8.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
ED&T
Mark-up
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.5%
1.0%
Total
Mark-up
17.7%
14.0%
10.3%
21.7%
19.7%
15.5%
11.3%
Assigning Mark-up Rates
The three primary steps to matching mark-up rates to a given component are:
Step 1; Primary manufacturing process and equipment groupings are pre-selected
as part of the process to identify the manufacturing overhead rate.
Step 2; Manufacturing facilities are identified as OEM, Tl or T2/T3 (this
identification process is discussed in more detail in the Manufacturing Assumption
& Quote Summary worksheet section).
Step 3; The best-fit mark-up rate is selected based on the size and complexity of
the part, which in turn is reflected in the size and complexity of the processing
equipment. Note that size and complexity are considered as independent
parameters when reviewing a component and the equipment capabilities (with
priority typically given to "complexity").
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 171
2.4.1.2.5 Packaging Database
The Packaging Database contains standardized packaging options available for
developing packaging costs for components and assemblies. In general only packaging
costs required to transport a component/assembly from a Tier 1 to an OEM facility (or
one facility to another at the same OEM) are calculated in detail. For Tier 2/3 suppliers of
high- and low-impact components, as well as purchased parts, the Tier 1 mark-up is
estimated to cover the packaging as well as shipping expenses.
All core packaging items (e.g., containers, pallets, totes) referenced in the database are
considered returnable dunnage. Internal packaging (e.g., tier pads, dividers, formed trays)
are also considered returnable with the exception of a few items that are expendable. The
cost to clean and maintain returnable dunnage is assumed to be covered by the
manufacturing overhead rate.
As stated earlier it was assumed packaging changes, and associates costs, were cost
neutral in the Silverado mass reduction analysis. This is based on the consideration that
packaging costs are generally a function of part volume versus part mass. In the analysis,
some components increased in volume, some decreased, and others remained constant.
Because of the overall small changes in packaging volume, to an already minor cost
driver, packing cost differentials were assumed negligible.
2.4.1.2.6 Shipping Costs
In the cost analysis, shipping costs are accounted for by one of three factors: (1) Indirect
Cost Multiplier (ICM), (2) total mark-up allowance, or (3) manufacturing overhead.
Further, shipping costs are always considered freight on board (FOB) the shipper's dock,
with the exception of intra-company transportation. Following are the four shipping
scenarios encountered in the cost analysis and how each case is handled.
In the first two cases, OEM and supplier intra-company transportation, shipping costs are
accounted for as part of the manufacturing overhead rate. It is assumed that the OEM or
supplier would either have their own transportation equipment and/or subcontract for this
service. In either case the expense is binned to manufacturing overhead.
The third case is Tier 1 shipments to an OEM facility. As stated previously the shipments
are FOB the shipper's dock and thus the OEM is responsible for the shipping expense.
The ICM is assumed to cover the OEM's expense to have all parts delivered to the
applicable OEM manufacturing facilities.
The final case is Tier 2/3 shipments to the Tier 1 facility. Generally, the Tier 1 supplier is
allowed a mark-up on incoming purchased parts from Tier 2/3 suppliers. The mark-up
covers many costs including the shipping expenses to have the part delivered onto the
Tier 1 supplier's dock. Further, the mark-up can either be a separate mark-up only
applied to incoming purchased parts, or accounted for by the mark-up applied to the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 172
TMCs. In the former, the purchase part content would not be included in the final mark-
up calculation (i.e., Mark-up = (TMC - Purchase Parts cost) x Applicable Mark-up Rate).
For this cost analysis, the latter case is chosen using the same mark-up rate for all Tier 1
value-added manufacturing as well as all incoming purchase parts.
2.4.1.2.7 Process Parameter Models
Process Parameter Models (PPM) are custom models used to calculate key processing
factors such as material usage, equipment selection, tool size and complexity, order of
operations, and cycle times.
Two types of basic PPM exist: (1) Generic PPM, and (2) Custom PPMs. Generic PPM
have been developed for generic operations (i.e., injection molding, stamping, forging die
casting, gear cutting, CNC machining, CNC turning, etc.). Custom PPM are developed
for unique operations or a series of unique operations such as assembling a battery pack.
Smaller sub-models are pulled together to create a custom PPM. Because the models are
developed for a custom assembly they need to be updated/modified for alternative
analyses. Custom models which are repeatedly used are eventually converted into generic
models minimizing repetitive re-construction.
Process Parameter Model inputs and outputs are based on the primary process type (e.g.,
stamping, injection molding, turning, milling, die casting, assembly). Examples of model
inputs include:
• Material specification
• Finish specification
• Finished mass
• Wall thickness
• Part package envelop
• Part projected area
• Feature type
• Feature count
• Feature location
• Number of cores
• Parting line locations
• Part cleanliness criteria
• Serial, parallel, batch processing
Examples of model outputs include the following:
• Primary equipment selection (i.e., type and size)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 173
• Secondary equipment selection , if applicable
• Total material usage (i.e., post process mass and in process material usage)
• Perishable materials usage (e.g., sand, solvent, binder, tools, etc.)
• Takt time build-up
• Tooling requirements
• Tooling cost build-up
• Tooling life projections
• Energy consumption
Output data from the PPM is used to support the selection of the appropriate
manufacturing overhead rates. For example in injection molding, the PPM would
calculate the estimate machine size (i.e., 200T, 600T, SOOT, etc.). The cost engineer
would then select the matching machine size in the manufacturing overhead database and
enter the corresponding rate in the Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary
(MAQS) worksheet. Other output parameters such as "Total Material Usage" and "Takt
Time" are manually imported into the MAQS worksheets along with other supporting
cost parameters from the databases. Additional details on how database and process
parameter model information is used to calculate final costs in the MAQS worksheet is
provided in the section that follows.
All process parameter cost models are developed using a combination of published
equipment data, published processing data, actual supplier production data, and/or subject
matter expert consultation.
2.4.1.3 Step 3: Cost Model Development
Once all components/assemblies requiring cost analysis are identified, the vehicle level
Comparison Bill of Materials (CBOMs) are updated to reflect the type of costing that will
be employed (i.e., commodity/benchmark or detailed/calculated). The objective is to
minimize costing of mass-produced commodity type components allowing for more
detailed costing on key high impact components and processes which may not be
considered mainstream in-terms of production volumes and market maturity. In addition
to volume and maturity considerations, the value of the components also played into the
decision of selecting either commodity or detailed costing.
2.4.1.3.1 Commodity and Benchmark Costing
The Commodity and Benchmark Costing methodology analysis is generally divided into
three levels of costing. The first level of costing is for low-value/low-impact commodity-
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 174
type components. Costs for these types of components (e.g., bolts, nuts, washers, seals,
retainers, etc.) are taken from exiting FEV and Munro commodity databases.
The second level of costing is for moderate- to high-impact commodity-type components
(e.g., solenoids, sensors, wire harnesses, etc.). Based on high mass-production volumes,
product maturity, and market place competition, acquiring reliable component/assembly
costs is possible. If a direct component match is not possible, the team will conduct a
teardown on the commodity component to assess differences to a like component in the
costing databases. Adjustment/scaling factors are then developed to account for any
manufacturing/commercial differences. If the component does not exist in the
manufacturing costing databases, the team consults with industry subject matter experts
to acquire pricing.
The third level of costing involves scaling benchmark data for high-impact custom-
fabricated and assembled components. From existing component cost data, from previous
cost and benchmark studies (w/ similar boundary conditions), scaling factors are
developed based on attribute differences between the parts under evaluation and parts in
the database. The scaling factors are applied to the benchmark costs to arrive at
component costs applicable to the analysis.
For the Silverado mass reduction and cost analysis, the use of commodity pricing was
generally limited to levels one and two.
2.4.1.3.2 Detailed Cost Modeling
The detail cost modeling methodology employed in Step 3 (overall costing process) is
further broken down into three primary processes sub-steps (Figure 2.4-4): (3A) the
development of detailed production process maps/flow charts (P-flows), (3B) the transfer
and processing of key information from the P-flows into standardize Manufacturing
Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheets, and (3C) the summation of costs,
at each level of the product structure (i.e., assembly, sub-sub system, subsystem, system,
vehicle) in Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs). Supporting these two primary
processes with key input data are the process parameter models and the costing databases
(e.g., material [price/kg], labor [$/hour], manufacturing overhead [$/hour], mark-up [% of
manufacturing cost], and packaging [$/packaging type]). Figure 2.4-4 highlights the
primary detailed costing steps shown in Figure 2.4-3 (Cost Methodology Steps for
Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 175
Baseline Engine Components
Cost Modeling Tools
Costing Databases
Process
Mapping/Process
Flows
Manufacturing
rsumption Quot
Summary
Worksheets
Process Parameter
Figure 2.4-4: Primary Process Steps in Detailed Cost Modeling
2.4.1.3.2.1 Step 3A: Process Mapping/Process Flow Charts
Process flow charts, depending on their defined function and the end user, can vary
widely in the level of detail contained. They can range from simple block diagrams
showing the general steps involved in the manufacturing or assembly of an item, to very
detailed process flow charts breaking out each process step in fine detail capturing key
manufacturing variables. For this cost analysis, detailed P-flows (which will also be
referred to as process maps) are used to identify all the steps involved in manufacturing a
product (e.g., assembly, machining, welding, forming), at all levels (e.g., system,
subsystem, assembly and component).
For example, in a front brake system scenario, process flows would exist for the
following: (1) at the component level, the manufacturing of every component within the
front brake caliper sub-assembly. This would include such components as the caliper
housing, caliper mounting bracket, caliper piston, etc. (unless considered a purchase part
- i.e., bleeder fitting, brake pads, piston seal, fastening bolts, etc.); (2) at the assembly
level, the assembly of all the individual components to produce the caliper assembly
module; and (3) at the subsystem level, the assembly of the caliper module onto the front
knuckle module (including the splash shield, bearing hub, rotor, etc.). In this example, the
front rotor/drum and shield subsystem is one of several subsystems (e.g., rear rotor/drum
and shield subsystem, parking brake and actuation subsystem, brake actuation subsystem,
and power brake subsystem) making up the overall vehicle braking system. Each
subsystem, if it is costed in the analysis, would have its own process map broken out
using this same process methodology.
In addition to detailing pictorially the process steps involved for a given manufacturing
process, having key information (e.g., equipment type, tooling configuration, material
type and usage, cycle times, handling requirements, number of operators) associated with
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 176
each step is imperative. Understanding the steps and the key process parameters together
creates the costing roadmap for any particular manufacturing process.
Due to the vast and complex nature of P-flows associated with some of the larger systems
and subsystems under analysis, having specialized software which can accurately and
consistently create and organize the abundant number of detailed P-flows becomes a
considerable advantage. For this cost analysis Design Profit® software is utilized for
producing and managing the process flows and integrating key costing information.
The Design Profit methodology is a quantitative, analytical tool used to symbolically map
a single component or product assembly, providing a consistent means of capturing every
step of the process while consistently capturing various metrics associated with the total
cost of manufacturing. Figure 2.4-5 shows an example of a process map created by the
Design Profit software. Simply explained, the symbols which make up the process map
each contain essential pieces of information required to develop a cost for a particular
operation or process.
For example, in a metal stamping process, the basic geometry of the part, quantity and
complexity of part features, material gauge thickness, and material selection are examples
of the input parameters used in the calculation of the output process parameters (e.g.,
press size, press cycle time, stamping blank size). As discussed in Section 2.4.1.2.7
(Process Parameter Models), input data captured in the process symbols is entered into
Process Parameter Models (PPMs) to arrive at the output costing parameters.
For simpler serial processes, and multiple-step, serial-type processes (e.g., assembly
process, metal removal process) process parameter models are created directly in Design
Profit®. Generally, these type process parameter models are single input type models;
e.g., weld time/linear millimeter of weld, cutting time/square millimeter of cross-
sectional area, and drill time/millimeter of hole depth. The output parameters, such as
process takt time, is captured within the process map symbol; imported into a MAQS
worksheet in the Step 3B of the process.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 177
! Fte &* Vtew Project Took C«nvdS«rv«r window Mcfc
UG
-V_J
u r r c
•-DC.
.ibll'
.QlMM*
•&r*~~
TJ •- • •
.»._
.u —
. ?^-T.-
L•*•••••
_:
Figure 2.4-5: Example of Design Profit® Mapping/Costing Software
2.4.1.3.2.2 Step 3B: Manufacturing Assumption - Quote Summary (MAQS) Worksheet
The second major step in the cost analysis process involves taking the key information
from the Process Flows, Process Parameter Models and Databases, and uploading it into
a standardized quote worksheet. The quote worksheet, referred to as the Manufacturing
Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet, is essentially a modified generic
OEM quoting template. Every assembly included in the cost analysis (excluding
commodity purchased parts) has a completed MAQS worksheet capturing all the cost
details for the assembly. For example, all the components and their associated costs,
required in the manufacturing of a brake caliper module assembly, will be captured in the
caliper module assembly MAQS worksheet. In addition, a separate MAQS worksheet
detailing the cost associated with assembling the caliper assembly to the vehicle front
suspension knuckle, along with any other identified front corner brake sub-subsystem
components, would be created.
Main Sections of Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary Worksheet
The MAQS worksheet, as shown in Figure 2.4-6 and Figure 2.4-7, contains seven major
sections. At the top of every MAQS worksheet is an information header (Section A),
which captures the basic project details along with the primary quote assumptions. The
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 178
project detail section references the MAQS worksheet back to the applicable CBOM. The
primary quote assumption section provides the basic information needed to put together a
quote for a component/assembly. Some of the parameters in the quote assumption section
are automatically referenced/linked throughout the MAQS worksheet, such as capacity
planning volumes, product life span, and OEM/T1 classification. The remaining
parameters in this section including facility locations, shipping methods, packing
specifications, and component quote level are manually considered for certain
calculations.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 179
:- 1
h h
s
i
,1
$
•'•'-
'" "
m II
j
«•
*
(
f
L
C
!
J
J!
if t
• .
M ,•
'".'•:•
it
S|
11
±
1!
^_
V
;
f
»
r-
i
j
"
i1
I
^
\
a
»
L
r
^
i-
*
.•I
'•!
a
j!
1
»
f
-i
6
i
L,
r
S
1
*
!•
i
h
i
['
ff
5
a
S
SI
*
1
f
-• i
'
•
u
|
B
•
|
a
3
1
_
J!
«
j
j
i
i
^
i
3
- 1
«W
1«ll*
«,'.:-«,
"j"."
ji-s
jj»*3
SJ!a
iia
«Sl?3
*.*,L«-1.*,,.|^,
|j
a»
i
§
11
|J!''2
•jiS
U?3
jjsg
unu^.v
""*^"1
»,.>,-,!,
m.d.f.n
i>u>irwitwii_
Ii
''I
ii
1
4
tl
»i
|l
.,.,..,.•,-.*.,
j
i
1
i
i
I
.•
i..
I
r
1 1 I I 1
1 I i 1 1
I_JS_J_J
S S S S
i_J_J_J
i i i f
l l 1 l
S_J_J_J
.; • i i!
i i 1 1 1
i i a a i
a a a a i
1 I 1 i !
! 1 1 1 1
E E E 1 I
1 ! i 1 1
II _ II II
- ••
•
J J i J
f j j j
i S ! I'
MM
' U !
" rill
'i % j\ 'i ;'
*j *j *j *j *
S" i" i" i" i
il !
LJIi
j M j
3 j i »
in;
.. .,
3 3
o ;
a a
1 ii
j i
f i
t f
ii :i
."i
i i
a a
a a
1 1
1 1
C 1!
1 l
1 II II
l l l
j |
i : !
M
', 1, J
• '
thh
• •
j j
i i
!> •
V '.
1 ¥ J
111
1 *.
!
•J
f
I
I
f
lllllll
«.nn*;
:.2.a^
HHW
««JM
HfHii
liififi
S S ii s' ii !i 4
•• i- • i n • •
••• 1 1 • i
j.ijj,i".;
aaaaaiis
aassaaa
H H 5 u !! B 8
aai!3!i3:i
i s s s 3 s s
3 .1 ; ^ vi
TTTTTn I
E
—• •• E
3333399 C
,.=.... f
1
f t' 1 ' (;' J. ^" ^'
unjii
il 11 1 1 B
:.!VV7^
i- r r i1 J| i- i- P
ipiifii i
* * il 1
1
I~J
¥¥¥T¥77 R
Iff
If, :
mijil
. i i . . L I
til
H'
i:
J
P
1
«
'
J
2
j
G
1
i
I
f
j
J5
»
M .; .i j 3 Ii -J J J t ! !
1
,.,.!..,. ^ A
LI LI LI .1 LI LI LI .,:i|.|l j 1
3 J :i j j j ;; j :i ii 'I 1 ^
\ ., ....
( 1 1 » j
\ 1 M-
ii IK
|i aisa
!» SM
Miii
t j a 'i
i
j ] 3 i tl
! it!
Ill
\n
\
* .
^ u.
1 7
_, t 0
i fii i c
! ill i Q
i llf S iu
| l _ OT
IP -
i hi f
1 jl
1 Irl M
liliiii
x" ^
:;:::• ^
n n H n • «•'•"-' L
•'•'•' 1
:!:::: *
:H:;:
unisij
v 99 ^4^2
n n n n n ri n A
f F?
"'.""!! !!,'.! \
•.i j
fi
n
•
j
Figure 2.4-6: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 1 of 2)
-------
II
i
• II
\ \
'!
!'
1
,
.
i i ,
u ii
'! Ji
;! s*
II ii |
ii i ! i
* *
! !
If
\ • \ •> t
! ! 1 ?
I \ I 9999
i ! ! 9 ! i
i 99 9999
99 9999
"
- 9 s :
s s s s
! 99 9999
'! ! i
• ••••**
H H R M R H P
n>;.
I i 1 1 i
1 1 1 i i
: . r. • r r
a S 9 a ! 9 9
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 180
J!
i"
Ui;
?!
1:
9.|i
:
Mil
Hi*
i'i
u
z
3I*H*IDUI|
iliiiliiii
3 Ii 2 2s 5 11 ii3 2
Figure 2.4-7: Sample MAQS Costing Worksheet (Part 2 of 2)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 181
Two parameters mentioned above whose functions perhaps are not so evident from their
names are the "OEM/T1 classification" and "component quote level."
The "OEM/T 1 classification" parameter addresses who is taking the lead on
manufacturing the end-item component, the OEM or Tier 1 supplier. Also captured is the
OEM or Tier 1 level, as defined by size, complexity, and expertise level. The value
entered into the cell is linked to the Mark-up Database, which will up-load the
corresponding mark-up values from the database into the MAQS worksheet. For
example, if "Tl High Assembly Complexity" is entered in the input cell, the following
values for mark-up are pulled into the worksheet: Scrap = 0.70%, SG&A = 7%, Profit =
8.0% and ED&T = 4%. These rates are then multiplied by the TMC at the bottom of the
MAQS worksheet to calculate the applied mark-up as shown in Figure 2.4-8.
The process for selecting the classification of the lead manufacturing site (OEM or Tl)
and corresponding complexity (e.g., High Assembly Complexity, Moderate Assembly
Complexity, Low Assembly Complexity) is based on the team's knowledge of existing
value chains for same or similar type components.
OEM Operating Pattern (Weeks/Ye
Annual Engine Volume (CF
Components per Eng
[ Annual Component Volu
WeekV Component Volu
| | Estimated Product L
Tl tr DE
fs*ni
II Total Maniihcluring Co-,t
TlorOEMMirMJpRiIrt:
SI1 or Ml H Mirh-llp '.' ilin •.
ta&t Coil Imp jit to vthide:
HUfml
42. te
Dm
&*
ar) "
>V] 45I.MO
OEM Plant Location
North Americj
ne ' ^6M/T1 Classification TIHighAswmblyCumplfHty^^
Tie 1.HMH
Tie 38.JK
ife 11
Shipp
Packaging Sf
tecidcation
R*tum»l* CorHtintr & Intmul nunmgt
TMC
V
Labor
J14I
|1.«
Bunt
ffi«
*U6
HIM
_4ttjg^
_am-
n»
Total
IlirV
up
--trie
tin
1
tE
— +
ri, i i. .'Mi, "i "in, '.',:,:'
2^
$1111
iooi
$11 11
>
Figure 2.4-8: Excerpt Illustrating Automated Link between OEM/T1 Classification Input in MAQS
Worksheet and the Corresponding Mark-up Percentages Uploaded from the Mark-up Database
The "component quote level" identifies what level of detail is captured in the MAQS
worksheet for a particular component/assembly, full quote, modification quote, or
differential quote. When the "full quote" box is checked, it indicates all manufacturing
costs are captured for the component/assembly. When the "modification quote" box is
checked, it indicates only the changed portion of the component/assembly has been
quoted. A differential quote is similar to a modification quote with the exception that
information from both technology configurations, is brought into the same MAQS
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 182
worksheet, and a differential analysis is conducted on the input cost attributes versus the
output cost attributes. For example, if two brake boosters (e.g., the production stock
booster and the mass-reduced booster) are being compared for cost, each brake booster
can have its differences quoted in a separate MAQS worksheet (modification quote) and
the total cost outputs for each can be subtracted to acquire the differential cost.
Alternatively in a single MAQS worksheet the cost driving attributes for the differences
between the booster's (e.g., mass difference on common components, purchase
component differences, etc.) can be offset, and the differential cost calculated in a single
worksheet. The differential quote method is typically employed on those components
with low differential cost impact to help minimize the number of MAQS worksheets
generated.
From left to right, the MAQS worksheet is broken into two main sections as the name
suggests a quote summary section (Section B), and manufacturing assumption section
(Section D). The manufacturing assumption section, positioned to the right of the quote
summary section, is where the additional assumptions and calculations are made to
convert the serial processing operations from Lean Design into mass production
operations. Calculations made in this section are automatically loaded into the quote
summary section. The quote summary section utilizes this data along with other costing
database data to calculate the total cost for each defined operation in the MAQS
worksheet.
Note that "defined operations" are all the value-added operations required to make a
component or assembly. For example, a high-pressure fuel injector may have 20 base-
level components which all need to be assembled together. To manufacture one of the
base level components there may be as many as two or three value-added process
operations (e.g., cast, heat treat, and machine). In the MAQS worksheet each of these
process operations has an individual line summarizing the manufacturing assumptions
and costs for the defined operation. For a case with two defined operations per base level
component, plus two subassembly and final assembly operations, there could be as many
as 40 defined operations detailed in the MAQS worksheet. For ease of viewing all the
costs associated with a part, with multiple value-added operations, the operations are
grouped together in the MAQS worksheet.
Commodity based purchased parts are also included as a separate line in the MAQS
worksheet. Although there are no supporting manufacturing assumptions and/or
calculations required since the costs are provided as total costs.
From top to bottom, the MAQS worksheet is divided into four quoting levels in which
both the value-added operations and commodity-based purchase parts are grouped: (1)
Tier 1 Supplier or OEM Processing and Assembly, (2) Purchase Part - High Impact
Items, (3) Purchase Part - Low Impact Items, and (4) Purchase Part - Commodity. Each
quoting level has different rules relative to what cost elements are applicable, how cost
elements are binned, and how they are calculated.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 183
Items listed in the Tier 1 Supplier or OEM Processing and Assembly section are all the
assembly and subassembly manufacturing operations assumed to be performed at the
main OEM or Tl manufacturing facility. Included in manufacturing operations would be
any in process attribute and/or variable product engineering characteristic checks. For this
quote level, full and detailed cost analysis is performed (with the exception of mark-up
which is applied to the TMC at the bottom of the worksheet).
Purchase Part — High Impact Items include all the operations assumed to be performed
at Tier 2/3 (T2/3) supplier facilities and/or Tl internal supporting facilities. For this quote
level detailed cost analysis is performed, including mark-up calculations for those
components/operations considered to be supplied by T2/3 facilities. Tl internal
supporting facilities included in this category do not include mark-up calculations. As
mentioned above, the Tl mark-up (for main and supporting facilities) is applied to the
TMC at the bottom of the worksheet.
Purchase Part - Low Impact Items are for higher priced commodity based items which
need to have their manufacturing cost elements broken out and presented in the MAQS
sheet similar to high impact purchase parts. If not, the material cost group in the MAQS
worksheet may become distorted since commodity based purchase part costs are binned
to material costs.
At the bottom of the MAQS worksheet (Section F), all the value-added operations and
commodity-based purchase part costs, recorded in the four quote levels, are automatically
added together to obtain the TMC. The applicable mark-up rates based on the Tl or OEM
classification recorded in the MAQS header are then multiplied by the TMC to obtain the
mark-up contribution. Adding the TMC and mark-up contribution together, a subtotal
unit cost is calculated.
Important to note is that throughout the MAQS worksheet, all seven cost element
categories (material, labor, burden, scrap, SG&A, profit, and ED&T) are maintained in
the analysis. Section C, MAQS breakout calculator, which resides between the quote
summary and manufacturing assumption sections, exists primarily for this function.
The last major section of the MAQS worksheet is the packaging calculation, Section E.
In this section of the MAQS worksheet a packaging cost contribution is calculated for
each part based on considerations such as packaging requirements, pack densities,
volume assumptions, stock, and/or transit lead times. As previously mentioned, for the
purpose of this study component/assembly packaging costs were considered to be neutral
due to the relative size envelope of these parts not changing significantly between the
production stock and mass-reduced parts.
Marketplace Validation
Marketplace validation is the process by which individual parts, components, and/or
assemblies are cross-checked with costing data developed by entities and processes
external to the team responsible for the cost analysis. This process occurs at all stages of
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 184
the cost analysis, with special emphasis is placed on cross-checking in-process costs (e.g.,
material costs, material selection, labor costs, manufacturing overhead costs, scrap rates,
and individual component costs within an assembly).
In-process cost validation occurs when a preliminary cost has been developed for a
particular part within an assembly, and the cost is significantly higher or lower than
expected based on the team's technical knowledge or on pricing from similar
components. In this circumstance, the cost analysis team would first revisit the costs,
drawing in part/process-specific internal expertise and checking surrogate parts from
previously costed bills of materials where available. If the discrepancy is still unresolved,
the team would rely on automotive supplier networks, industry experts, and/or publicly
available publications to validate the cost assumptions, making changes where warranted.
Cross-checking on final assembly costs also occurs within the scope of the cost analysis,
mainly as a "big picture" check. Final assembly costs, in general cross-checking, are
typically achieved through solicitation of industry experts. The depth of cross-checking
ranges from simple comparison of cost data on surrogate assemblies to full
Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS) worksheet reviews.
2.4.1.3.2.3 Step 3C: Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs)
The Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs) are the documents used to display and
roll-up all the costs associated with a particular subsystem, system or vehicle. At the
lowest level of the hierarchy, the manufacturing assumption quote summary worksheets,
associated with a particular vehicle subsystem, are directly linked to the Sub-subsystem
CMAT (SSSCMAT). These Sub-subsystem cost totals are then summarized at the next
level in the Subsystem CMAT (SSCMAT). All the subsystems cost breakdowns,
associated with a particular system, are directly linked to the relevant System CMAT
(SCMAT). Similarly, all the system cost breakdown summaries are directly linked to the
Vehicle CMAT (VCMAT). The top-down layering of the incremental costs, at the
various CMAT levels, paints a clear picture of the cost drivers at all levels for the
adaptation of the light-weighting technology. In addition, since all of the databases,
MAQS worksheets, and CMATs are linked together, the ability to understand the impact
of various cost elements on the incremental cost can be readily understood. These costing
variables can be easily and quickly updated within the various databases to provide a
tremendous amount of flexibility in evaluating various costing scenarios and sensitivity
studies.
2.4.1.3.3 Incremental Tooling Calculations
As part of the mass reduction and cost analysis project, EPA requested that FEV
determine the differential tooling impact for those components that were evaluated for
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 185
mass reduction. Tooling Costs are defined as the dedicated tool, gauge, and fixture costs
required to manufacture a part. Examples of items covered by tooling costs include
injection molds, casting molds, stamping dies, weld fixtures, assembly fixtures, dedicated
assembly and/or machining pallets, and dedicated gauging. For this analysis, all tooling is
assumed to be owned by the OEM.
Tooling costs should not be confused with equipment and facility costs (also sometimes
referred to as investment costs or capital investment costs. Investment costs include
manufacturing plants, manufacturing equipment (e.g., injection mold machines, die cast
machines, machining and turning machines, welding equipment, assembly lines),
material handling equipment (e.g., lift forks, overhead cranes, loading dock lifts,
conveyor systems), paint lines, plating lines, and heat treat equipment. Investment costs
are accounted for in the manufacturing overhead rates. The tool cost analysis is an
incremental analysis using a similar methodology as established for developing the
incremental direct manufacturing costs. For example if a part on the production Silverado
is injection-molded and the new mass reduced replacement part is injection-molded using
the PolyOne injection mold process, then no further tooling analysis was conducted. The
PolyOne process requires no significant tooling modifications relative to traditional
injection mold tools. Conversely, if a component went from a stamped part to an injection
mold part, the team would then quote the tooling needed for stamping the production
stock part as well as the injection-molded mass-reduced part. The tooling cost would be
the difference between these two values (+/-).
Differential Tooling Cost Analysis Methodology
Outlined here are the general process steps used by FEV to evaluate the differential
tooling impact between the production stock Silverado components and the mass-reduced
replacement components.
1) Assemble and assign teams of manufacturing expertise
a) Assembled team members have expertise in several key primary and secondary
manufacturing processes including stamping, casting, molding and machining.
b) When required, outside consultation resources were also utilized.
c) Assemble and assign teams to vehicle subsystems and systems having a majority
of components with fabrication processes matching team's expertise.
2) Establish Boundary Conditions for Tooling Analysis
a) High volume production: 450K units/year
b) Assumed manufacturing life: 5 years
c) Assumed cost of borrowing money: 8%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 186
3) Identify mass-reduced components in the analysis potentially having an
incremental tooling impact
a) Evaluate component manufacturing process differences between the production
stock and mass-reduced components.
b) Based on the team's assessment, if a significant tooling value difference exists
between the production stock and mass reduced components, a tooling analysis is
initiated.
c) If an insignificant incremental tooling difference is identified by the team, a zero
value is placed in the Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary (MAQS)
worksheet for both the production stock component and mass-reduced alternative.
4) Establish tooling costs for components having a potential tooling impact
(components which were not evaluated in the analysis for mass reduction were
excluded from the analysis up front)
a) Establish tooling line-up for the production Silverado components with respect to
the mass-reduced components (e.g., types of tools, number of tools).
b) Six standard tooling categories exist to establish the potential tooling line-ups:
i) Primary Manufacturing Tools and Fixtures (e.g., molds, dies, machining
fixtures, assembly fixtures, stamping tools)
ii) End of Line Gauges and Testing Fixtures
iii) Non-Perishable Tooling (e.g., machining cutter bodies, pick-n-place/gantries
arms, guide/bushing plates)
iv) Custom & Dedicated Gauges
v) Bulk Processes (e.g., baskets, hangers, custom conveyors or walking arms)
vi) OPTIONAL (to be described w/ comment box if needed)
c) As part of the tooling assessment, consideration is also given to the following:
i) Number of back-up tool sets
ii) Repair frequency, complexity, and costs
iii) Refurbishment frequency, complexity, and costs
d) Tooling costs for each operation included in the component analysis are summed-
up and entered in the tooling column of the Manufacturing Assumption and Quote
Summary (MAQS) worksheet (Figure 2.4-9). The tooling impact is automatically
summed-up at the bottom of the MAQS worksheet similar to the direct
manufacturing costs for every component evaluated; both the production stock
Silverado parts (baseline) and mass-reduced Silverado parts (new technology
configuration).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 187
Figure 2.4-9: Sample Excerpt from Mass-Reduced Front Stabilizer Bar MAQS Worksheet
Illustrating Tooling Columns and Categories
5) Calculation of Net Differential Tooling Impact
a) Similar to the direct manufacturing cost roll-ups, Cost Model Analysis Templates
(CMATs) are used to roll-up the tooling costs at each level of the analysis.
b) Tooling costs are summed-up at the sub-subsystem, subsystem, system level and
vehicle level.
6) The Final step is the calculation of "Incremental Tooling Cost per Vehicle" and
"Incremental Tooling Cost per Kilogram" of mass reduction at the final assessed
mass-reduced vehicle
a) Assumptions and calculations using the vehicle differential tooling cost and mass
reduction values are shown below.
b) Additional details on incremental tooling costs by system can be found in
Section 4.
Assumptions;
• Assumed Average Component Volume: 450K units per year
• Average product/tooling life: 5 years
• Cost of money: 8%
• Calculated incremental vehicle tooling cost: Decrease $7.3M
• Calculate mass reduction/vehicle (w/ NVH countermeasures) = 510.9 kg (20.8%)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 188
Calculations (for the 20.8% mass reduced vehicle);
• Investment saving growth over 5 years = $7.3 —>• $10.3M (8% growth over 5
years)
• Incremental Tooling Cost Savings per Vehicle = $4.57 ($ 10.3M tooling/[450K
units/year x 5 years])
• Incremental Tooling Cost Saving per Kilogram @ Vehicle Level =
$0.009/kilogram [($4.577 Vehicle)/(510.9 kg/Vehicle)]
2.4.1.4 Step 4: Cost Assessment of Varying Levels of Vehicle Mass reduction
The final cost modeling task was to develop a cost curve representing the average cost
per kilogram of mass reduction in relationship to percent vehicle mass reduction. Cost
curves with and without secondary mass-savings were developed. The following process
steps were taken to develop the cost curves:
1) Mass-reduced components and assemblies, without secondary mass-savings, were
sorted from best value (lowest cost) to least value in-terms of cost per kilogram.
2) Starting at the best-value mass-reduced components and assemblies, mass
reduction and costs were cumulatively added providing a mass reduction and cost
total at various increments of percent vehicle mass reduction.
3) The counter measure mass allowance (50 kg) and associated cost ($150) were then
added to the cumulative mass and costs values in step two above. This was
accomplished by equally allocating the counter measure mass and costs over the
total vehicle mass reduction and associated costs.
4) The cumulative cost per kilogram points (points without secondary mass-savings)
were then plotted with respect to percent vehicle mass reduction (green diamonds
in Figure 2.4-10). In addition the final vehicle solution (20.8% vehicle mass
reduction), identified as "Aluminum Intensive Body and HSS Intensive Frame," as
well as an HSS Intensive and Aluminum Intensive vehicle solution, were added to
the plot (red • and blue squares respectively in Figure 2.4-10).
5) To establish a similar plot inclusive of secondary mass savings, the benefit from
secondary mass savings was added to the points without secondary mass savings.
As shown in Executive Table 3, the added mass and cost benefit achieved from
applicable system downsizing was 83.9 kilograms and $68.74 respectively per
vehicle. These savings were based on the overall vehicle achieveing a 20% mass
reduction. The added mass and cost savings are divided by the 20% mass
reduction to determinine the added mass reduction and cost benefit at a give
percent vehicle mass reduction. For example at 10% vehicle mass reduction an
additional 42kg (83.9 kg*(10%/20%) of mass and $34.37 ($68.74*(10%/20%) of
cost savings are realized. By adding the ratioed mass and cost benefit to the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 189
cumulative cost per kilogram points defined in step four above a cost/kilogram
versus percent vehicle mass reduction plot, inclusive of secondary mass savings, is
achieved (purple triangles A in Figure 2.4-10).
•?°
c
3
•o
^ ,1,
M
H
re
5 tn
.1 »
ost of Cumul
r> -OTh -L
n 4^ r*
a
Su $8 -
Cm
Aluminum Intensive Body and HSS
Intensive Frame w/ Mass Compounding \
+ +' X- ?
*^ TM "*
» 5% A A 10% 15%
•+'
Aluminum Intensive Bodyand
, France w/ Mas? Cor^pounding,
20% 25%
^** HSS Intensive Bodyand Frame w/
^^F Mass Compounding
J
/
A
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
w/o Compounding
Aw/ Compounding
Figure 2.4-10: Light-Duty Pickup Truck Cost Curves With and Without Mass Compounding
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 190
2.4.2 Body and Frame Evaluation Group - Cost Modeling Details
2.4.2.1 Approach
The incremental costs for the Body and Frame components were estimated by EDAG
using the Technical Cost Modeling (TCM) approach developed by the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) Materials Systems Laboratory's researchers.[19] In this
method each of the elements that contribute to the total cost is individually estimated. For
example, for a stamped sheet metal part, the cost model estimates the costs for each of the
operations involved in the manufacturing process, starting from blanking the steel coil
through the final stamping operation to fabricate the component. The final estimated total
manufacturing cost and assembly cost are a sum total of all the respective cost elements
including the costs for material, tooling, equipment, direct labor, energy, building and
maintenance.
TCM is a comprehensive cost estimation technique accepted and utilized by multiple
organizations in industry, government agencies and its national labs and academia. We
attribute this acceptance to the methodology for TCM since in this model the cost of
component or system is broken into costs associated to discrete manufacturing and
assembly process steps and all the process assumptions are clearly defined upfront. TCM
is specifically designed to assess the interaction between process input variables (e.g.,
equipment type and cycle time) specific to the process and the final cost. The approach is
based on applying basic engineering principles and clearly defined economic and
accounting principles. For these reasons, the team believes TCM is an appropriate tool
for studies focused on a comparative analysis between competing designs or technologies
within a company where the remaining costs are assumed to be approximately identical,
as is the case with this study. The focus of this study is to compare the cost impact of
certain lightweight technologies to the baseline vehicle. TCM is a suitable tool for this
study providing the incremental costs of the proposed mass-reduced design along with
the detailed costs elements.
2.4.2.2 TCM History and Usage
TCM was initially developed to support the World Auto Steel ULSAB-AVC (Advanced
Vehicle Technologies), a program intended "to demonstrate and communicate steel's
capability to help fulfill society's demands for safe, affordable and environmentally
responsible vehicles for the 21st Century."[20] Subsequently, EDAG expanded the model
19 Frank Field, Randolph Kirchain and Richard Roth, Process cost modeling: Strategic engineering and economic
evaluation of materials technologies, JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Volume 59,
Number 10, 21-32
20 http://www.worldautosteel.org/Projects/ULSAB-AVC/Programme-Detail.aspx (last accessed February 9, 2012)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 191
to support the Future Steel Vehicle program which assessed body structure costs while
also applying future manufacturing technologies^21 ] EDAG's extensive and recognized
modeling work yielded a portfolio of established, consistently developed cost models
available to leverage for assessing body structures, closures, and among other vehicle
components or systems. For purposes of this study, the cost model was updated to align
with project boundary conditions. TCM model is also employed by the Department of
Energy for costing exercises for its vehicle technologies program. Other examples of
TCM model application in automotive related studies include "Cost Modeling of Fuel
Cell Systems for Automobiles," "Economic Assessment of Alternative Manufacturing
Processes for the Camshaft[22] and Material Alternatives for the Automotive Crankshaft -
A Competitive Assessment Based on Manufacturing Economics."
2.4.2.3 Major Components of the Cost Model
For the Silverado mass reduction and incremental cost assessment, only the direct costs
for manufacturing the parts and assembly of the parts were considered for OEM produced
components and assemblies. For Tier 1-supplied components mark-up was added to the
direct manufacturing costs to arrive at the Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost
(OEM purchase price from supplier).
The major cost elements linked to the direct manufacturing and assembly are summarized
as follows:
• Fabrication costs of all the parts including tooling costs
• Assembly costs including tooling costs
• Material
• Direct labor
• Energy
• Equipment
• Building (Facilities)
• Maintenance
• Overhead labor in manufacturing plant, (i.e., indirect labor directly connected to
the manufacturing and assembly process)
To account for mark-up in purchased parts costs to the OEM, EDAG applied an
additional mark-up rate. For this study, the team considered selling, general, and
21 http://www.worldautosteel.org/Proiects/Future-Steel-Vehicle.aspx
22 Nallicheri, N., Clark, J., and Field, F., "An Economic Assessment of Alternative Manufacturing Processes for the
Camshaft," SAE Technical Paper 901741, 1990, doi: 10.4271/901741.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 192
administrative (SG&A) and profit to determine the final purchased price of the sub-
system. Note: SG&A includes allowance for R&D costs.
SG&A mark-up rate is used by the supplier to account for the overhead or non-
manufacturing related expenses, and some of the other elements such as:
• Supplier Quality
• Upper Management
• Divisional or corporate headquarters cost (e.g., non-manufacturing facilities,
utilities, maintenance etc.)
• Research and development
• Sales
• Human Resources
The SG&A mark-up rate is applied as a percentage of the total estimated manufacturing
costs. The default range for this cost analysis ranges between 4-6 % depending on the
complexity of the manufacturing technology and the respective sub-system design.
Similar to the SG&A mark-up rate, the profit mark-up rate is also proportional to the
complexity of the part design and manufacturing method. It also depends on the
availability of suppliers that possess a certain manufacturing technology. The profit
mark-up rates tend to increase as the number of suppliers decreases for a certain
manufacturing technologies. The profit mark-up ranges selected for this study were based
on an assumption of 6% based on historical data available from suppliers and OEMs.
Also, all the purchased items analyzed in this study are mature with respect to the
manufacturing feasibility and supplier availability.
The TCM approach does not account for any OEM indirect costs. The OEM indirect
costs include the costs that are not directly related to the manufacturing and assembly
activities such as corporate overhead, marketing, shipping expenses, research and
development etc. Discussed in Section 2.4.1, the consideration of OEM indirect costs is
outside the scope of this analysis.
2.4.2.4 Cost Model Tooling Assumptions
Tooling cost is defined as the cost to buy or build new tools (stamping dies, extrusion
dies, holding fixtures, cutting tools etc.) to make a specific product. Any design change
made to a component necessitates a manufacturing tooling change in most of the cases.
These tooling changes can range from minor design changes (cost neutral or low cost
impact) to requiring completely new tool designs (high cost impact). Therefore, most any
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 193
design change, irrespective of the degree of the change, results in a change in tooling
cost.
Although tooling difference existed between the production stock Chevrolet Silverado
and mass-reduced pick-up truck, the calculated non-perishable tooling (e.g., stamping
dies, extrusion dies, weld fixtures, gauges, etc.) result was cost neutral. Perishable tooling
used in welding, riveting and adhesive application is amortized into the piece cost.
2.4.2.4.1
Cost Model General Assumptions
For this study, the cost model was created based on the assumption that the parts are
manufactured in a Greenfield facility (or a facility new from the ground up) in the United
States. The cost assessment encompassed the raw material (steel, aluminum alloy etc.)
entering the plant to the complete vehicles leaving.
Pick-up truck's typical life-cycle has been assumed to be five years, with a mid-life cycle
face lift changes. The mid-life cycle face lift changes to the vehicle are usually changes
such as interior upgrades that do not involve major design changes. The researchers used
an annual production volume of 450,000 with a production life of five years for the cost
assessment in order to represent an average high sales volume vehicle. The other general
cost model inputs that are typical of a high volume manufacturing facility are
summarized in Table 2.4-3.
Table 2.4-3: Cost Model General Assumptions
Parameters
Cost Model Scope
Annual Production Volume
Production Location
Production life
Working days
Number of shifts per day
Hours per shift
Unplanned downtime per day
Unpaid Breaks per shift
Annual Available plant time
Annual Paid time
Assumptions
Manufacturing and Assembly Costs
450,000 parts/year
USA
5 years
240 days/year
2
8 hours
1 hour
0.5 hour
3360 hours
3600 hours
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 194
2.4.2.5 Cost Modeling Process
2.4.2.5.1 Manufacturing Cost Modeling Process
As discussed above, the TCM uses an approach in which each of the elements that
contribute to the fabrication cost is estimated individually. The final manufacturing costs
is a sum total of all the cost elements. The manufacturing cost assessment methodology is
illustrated in Figure 2.4-11. The TCM methodology used for the manufacturing cost
assessment mainly consists of the following steps:
1) Identify the component to be analyzed for costs and obtain the design data using
teardown and reverse engineering for the baseline vehicle parts.
2) Engineering review of the individual parts to determine the following:
• Raw material
• Appropriate manufacturing technology required
• Key operations for manufacturing
• Key applicable process inputs (equipment type, cycle time, material input etc.)
3) Generate process information sheets for all the key information from engineering
review
4) Input the component specific parameters into the Part Cost Model
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 195
1. Design Data for Component
Engineering Review of the Component, Assembly,
Sub-system/System to establish the following key
parameters:
• Material Specification
• Manufacturing Process
Input Blank Size
Unique process inputs
Tooling Costs
Equipment Specification
4. Inputthe part specific process parameters into
the Cost Model
fcoitc
Ul
Material
Labor
Equipment
Part Cost Model
1
lit Component Cost
1
Mai
Tooling
E
itenance
Energy
jilding
3. Generate process sheetsforall the individual
parts capturing all the parameters assessed during
the engineering review
Cost Model Built-in Formulas
• Generic Program Assumptions
• Generic Process Assumptions
Publicly available information
or information researched by EDAG
• Mate rial Data
• Labor Data
• Equipment Data
Figure 2.4-11: Fundamental Steps in Part Manufacturing Cost Assessment
2.4.2.5.2 Assembly Cost Modeling Process
The assembly costs of the body structure and other sub-systems were estimated using a
technical cost modeling approach similar to the manufacturing cost assessment
methodology explained in above. However, the key parameters for the assembly cost
assessment were established based on a detailed engineering review of each individual
assembly or sub-assembly.
The assembly cost assessment methodology is illustrated in Figure 2.4-12. The TCM
methodology used for the assembly cost assessment mainly consists of the following
steps:
1) Identify the sub-assemblies/assemblies to be analyzed for the costs and obtain
the design data from the vehicle teardown analysis results and CAD data.
2) Engineering review of the sub-assemblies/assemblies to determine the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 196
following:
• Sub-Assembly/Assembly Structure
• Joining Process
• Assembly Process Parameters, for example:
D Length of weld (Laser Welding, Laser Brazing)
D Number of welds (Resistance Spot Welding)
D Number of rivets (Self-Piercing Rivets)
D Length of bond (Adhesive bonding)
D Length of hem flange (Hemming)
3) Generate assembly sequence block diagrams sheets for each individual sub-
assembly/assembly capturing all the key information from the engineering
review
4) Input the sub-assembly/assembly specific parameters into the Assembly Cost
Model
1. Design Data for Sub-AssemblyJAssembly
Engineering Review of the SLb-Assembly.<'Assembly
to establish the following key parameters:
• Sub-Assembly/Assernbly Structure
• Joining Process
• Assembly Process Parameters
4. Inputthe sub-assembly/assembly specific
process parameters into the Cost Model
Assembly Cost Model
1
Unit Sub-Assembty/Assembly Cost
Material
Labor
Maintenance
Tooling
Energy
Equipment
Building
3. Generate assembly sequence diagrams forall the
individual sub-assemblies/assemblies capturing
all the parameters assessed during the
engineering review
r
Cost Model Built-in Formulas
• Generic Program Assumptions
• Generic Assembly Process
Assumptions
Publicly available information
or information researched by EDAG
• Process Data
• Labor Data
• Equipment Data
Figure 2.4-12: Fundamental Steps in Assembly Cost Assessment
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 197
2.4.2.5.3 Part Specific Inputs
One of the key steps in the part costs analysis is the determination of the material and the
manufacturing technology suitable for producing each respective part. Most significantly,
the manufacturing process should be able to produce the part at a high quality, and cost
effectively in a high production volume scenario to represent the automotive
manufacturing industry. Further, all the parts were also reviewed to establish the
following key process input parameters that are unique for every component:
• Input material (Blank size)
• Tooling investment and cycle time
• Equipment specification
2.4.2.5.4 Cost Model Generic Process Inputs
The unit manufacturing cost is derived from one of the following cost models based on
the selected manufacturing processes:
• Stamping
• Stamping Tailor Rolled Blank (TRB)
• Stamping Laser Welded Blank (LWB)
• Hot Stamping
• Hot Stamping Tailor Rolled Blank
• Hot Stamping Laser Welded Blank
• Closed Rollforming
• Open Rollforming
• Hydroforming
• Hydroforming Laser Welded Tube
• Casting
• Injection Molding
• Self-Piercing Riveting
The unit assembly cost employs one of the following costs models based on the selected
assembly processes:
• Resistance Spot welding
• Metal Inert Gas (MIG) welding
• Laser welding
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 198
Laser braze
Adhesive bonding
Roller Hemming
Self-Piercing Riveting
For each of the above mentioned processes, the generic process parameters that are
independent of the part/assembly design are built-in as formulas within the cost model.
For example, the general stamping press line process parameters are shown in Table
2.4-4.
Table 2.4-4: Stamping Press Line General Process Parameters
Process Parameter
Energy consumption rate
Space requirement
Unplanned downtime
Maintenance Percentage
Material loss percent
Press line die average change
time
Press line lot size
Stamping Assumptions
150 kW/hr
150 m2/line
1 hour/day
10%
0.5%
30 minutes
1500 parts/lot
Similar to the process parameters shown in Table 2.4-4, there are generic parameters built
into the cost model for each operation required to fabricate or assemble a part using a
particular manufacturing or assembly technology. For each operation, the team must
consider the sequence of the different operations, to estimate the overall manufacturing
component cost for the various technologies as shown in Table 2.4-5.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 199
Table 2.4-5: Manufacturing Processes and Operations Sequence
Material Price
Operation #1
Operation #2
Operation #3
Operation #4
Operation #5
Material Price
Operation #1
Operation #2
Operation #3
Operation #4
Operation #5
Operation #6
Operation #7
Operation #8
Manufacturing Portfolio
Stamping
Steel/Aluminum
Material Prices
Blanking (Single)
Stamping
Trimming
Stamping
Tailor Rolled
Blank
Steel Material
Prices w/
Rolling
Premium
Blanking
Stamping
Trimming
Stamping
Laser Welded
Blank
Steel Material
Prices
Blanking
Laser Welding
Stamping
Trimming
Hot Stamping
Steel Material
Prices
Blanking
Blank heating
Hot forming
Laser
Hot Stamping
Laser Welded
Blank
Steel Material
Prices
Blanking
Laser Welding
Blank heating
Hot forming
Laser
Injection
Molding
Heat Plastic
Injection
Mold
Cooling
Ejection
Manufacturing Portfolio
Closed Roll
Form
Steel Material
Prices
Forming
Welding
Trimming
Open - Roll
Form
Steel Material
Prices
Forming
Trimming
Hydroform
Steel Material
Prices
w/ Tubing
Premium
Bending
Pre-forming
Hydroforming
Trimming
Hydroform
Laser Welded
Tubes (LWT)
Steel Material
Prices
Blanking
Laser Welding
Master
Tube
Bending
Pre-forming
Hydroforming
Trimming
Casting
Magnesium/
Aluminum
Melting
Die Casting
Trimming
Machining
Aluminium
Extrusion
Aluminum
Material Prices
Cutting Billet
Extrusion
Straightening
Hyd resizing
Machining
Apart from the generic program assumptions and the generic process parameters, the cost
model also uses certain key information for calculating the above mentioned cost
components: the information for material prices ($/kg), labor rates ($/hr), equipment
investment ($).The material costs also takes into account the scrap rate from each unit
operation in the manufacturing process. Energy, building and maintenance are calculated
based on each respective generic process parameters. The building costs estimated in the
model were apportioned based on the actual space occupied and the specific requirements
to manufacture a specific part. Similarly, the maintenance costs in the model is for
maintaining the tools, equipment and building and is proportional to the actual utilization
for manufacturing and assembly which is also directly linked to the manufacturing
process.
Additional details on costing assumptions and parameters used in the analysis for the
Body and Frame Evaluation Group can be found in Appendix Section 7.2.9 (Cost
Assumptions). Final body and frame cost analysis results can be found in Section 4.18.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 200
3. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results Overview
3.1 Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results Overview - Vehicle Level
The following section provides an overview of the baseline vehicle evaluated, project
assumptions, and summary of the mass reduction and cost analysis results.
DIMENSIONS
A = 79.9"
B = 79.9"
C = 73.5" to 73.9"
(depending on model and
tire size selected)
D = 143.5" Short Box
E = 230.2"
F = 50.6"
G = 62.4"
H = 148.9"
I = 69.3" Short Box
Source: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Dealership Brochure
3.1.1 Mass Reduction, Cost and Volume Study Assumptions
As stated in the introduction, the foundation of the mass reduction and cost analysis was a
2011 model year Chevrolet Silverado 1500 LT, Crew Cab, Short Box. The evaluated full-
size, light-duty 4x4 pick-up truck came equipped with a 5.3 liter, Vortec V8 internal
combustion engine and a 6-speed automatic transmission. The vehicle had a 3.42 axle
ratio supporting a tow capacity of 4,318 kilograms (9,5001bs) and gross combined vehicle
weight (GCVW) of 6818 kilograms (15,0001bs).
The weight of production stock Chevrolet Silverado vehicle, as measured, was 2,386 kg
(5,260 Ibs.). The curb weight of the vehicle, with a full tank of gas, is calculated to
weigh 2,454 kg (5,410 Ibs). This was the baseline starting mass for the analysis. Figure
3.1-1 shows the starting mass for each of the major vehicle systems evaluated.
The purchase price of the vehicle was $36,400. Based on the assumption of a 1.5 times
retail price equivalent (RPE), the estimated direct manufacturing cost of the Silverado
vehicle was $24,300. The upper boundary condition to the vehicle direct manufacturing
costs increase was set at 10% or $2,430.
The 2011/2012 Chevrolet Silverado annual production sales volume range is 415k - 460k
units per year (http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2011/01/chevroletsilverado-sales-
figures.html}. For the overall project, an annual vehicle production volume of 45OK units
was assumed. In the case of the Chevrolet Silverado, many of the components and
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 201
assemblies (e.g., engine, transmission brake and other vehicle system components) are
cross-platform shared well beyond the 450K units per year (i.e., more than 500K units
per year). For the cost portion of the analysis all components were assumed to be
manufactured at 45 OK units/year.
E
(U
4-1
£.
1/1
700.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
1500 Series Chevrolet Silverado, Production Stock Pick-Up Truck
Vehicle Systems Mass Contributions
1
_^
I
c -^
5 "-
.
"
T3
I
Figure 3.1-1 Mass of 2011 Chevrolet Silverado (Production Stock) Vehicle Systems
3.1.2 Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Summary
The entire vehicle achieved a mass reduction of 560.9 kg (22.9%) at a cost increase of
$2,073.82 per vehicle. Including an allowance of 50kg for NVH countermeasures at a
cost of $150, the net vehicle mass reduction achieved was 510.9 kg (20.8%) at a cost
increase of $2,223.82. This equals an average cost per kilogram, inclusive of the NVH
counter measures, of $4.35 per kg.
The NVH mass and cost countermeasure values incorporated into the analysis are
budgetary estimates based on engineering experience. No full vehicle NVH analysis work
was completed to develop system/subsystem/assembly counter-measures as part this
project.
The major mass saving systems in the Chevrolet Silverado include: Body system (Group
-A-), which saved 8.4% of the vehicle weight; the Suspension system, 4.3%; and the
Brake system, 1.9%. The Engine and Transmission systems reduced the vehicle mass by
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 202
1.3% and 1.6% respectively. Figure 3.1-2 presents the starting mass for each of the
baseline vehicle systems along with final mass of each system evaluated.
700.0
600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
Vehicle System's Potential Light-Weighting
l/l
_0)
y
Production Stock Pickup Truck (2454 kg)
Mass-Reduced Pickup Truck (1943 kg)
Figure 3.1-2: Calculated System Mass Reduction Relative to Baseline Vehicle Starting Mass
Table 3.1-1 is the vehicle mass reduction summary, including the mass reduction and
cost impact from each of the major vehicle systems and subsystems evaluated. The cost
per kilogram for weight reduction in each system and subsystem are summarized with
and without tooling. For systems/subsystems which have a cost increase associated with
mass reduction [i.e., negative value ($/kg)], a larger negative number indicated a tooling
increase with mass reduction. Conversely a smaller negative number represents a
decrease in tooling. For systems/subsystems which experienced a unit cost savings with
mass reduction (i.e., positive value $/kg), a larger number represents a tooling decrease
with mass reduction. In both scenarios, no difference in the cost per kilogram value, with
and without tooling, indicates the associated tooling modifications were estimated to be
cost neutral.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 203
Table 3.1-1: System/Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Summary
CO
I
ra
01
"of
...........
.............
..........
01
61'
"01"
01
01
01
61"
............
"01"
01
01
02
JK
02
02
02
02
02
"02
02
02
02
"02"
03
03
""63"
03
03
03
03
"03"'
03
03
""03""
03
03
03
"03
03
03
'03'
'"03
,_.
03
03
03
"of
04
04
'04
"04
"04"
Subsystem
00
02
03
.......
'"be"'
07
09
To
11
12
13
""14""
......
jT
60
70
00
"or
02
03
04
05
"be"
07
08
09
"l"i""
"26"
00
01
"62"
03
04
18
---..
26""
00
.........
"be""
"of
To
J2
• 2Q
00
08
"09
""23"
IT
00
11
14
"16
00
01
r02
"03
,-....
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
bb
00
"bb"
"bb'
00
00
"bo"
00
"bb
bo
00
00
"bb"
00
00
00
00
00
00
bo
00
"bb"
00
"bb
00
00
bb
00
00
"bb"
00
00
00
00
"bb
00
00
"bb"
"bb"
ob
00
00
00
00
""bo
r'bb
""ob"
00
00
00
""bb
00
00
roo
00
rb"b"
Description
Engine System
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
'• va"k IJ-ve S ssystern
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetran Subsystem
Timing Dnve Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breatner Subsystem
Engine fv'anagernent Engine Electronic,
Bectrjcai Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator,
etc.)
Transmission System
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Internal Gluten Subsystem
Launch Gluten Subsystem
Oil Pump a"d Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking r/ecnan'sm Subsystem
Transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
Body System Group -A- ( Body Sheetmetal)
Body Structure Subsystem
Front End
Body Closure Subsystem
Second Unit Body
Body Paint
Bumper5 Subsystem
Pickup Box
Body System Gro.ip -B- (Bodv Interior)
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel anc1 Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Body System Group -C- (Body Exterior Trim)
Exterior Trim and OrarnentsKin Subsystem
Rear View fv'irrors Subsystem
h no t E lo f./ooules
Rear End Modules
Body System Group -D- (Glazing & Body
MechatronicsJ
Glass ;.GIazna:r F'arne and r..''ecnanism
Subsystem
Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms
Subsystem
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Baseline
System/
Subsystem
Mass "kg"
239.95
6.07
37766
59786
i"T.9"6
16726
1.75
8.27
l"T"95
i7ii
12.17
iass
24.32
6.05
IIllEI
5.67
1989
145.28
0.02
3"6"73
12.39
30.47
20.29
7.5'b
7.14
T.3"6
6.BB
28.44
3"l3
574.72
2"6fi"6'
38732
153 70
0.00
b.bb
48740
127710
247.02
567545
4.78
14.52
126769
30.84
19 "64
40.47
lilsi
4"7i6
iTba
2.30
5086
3960
5 66
5.61
301 24
54.76
63 "52
24! 36
158".61
Mass
Reduction
"*" Mass Decrease
"-" Mass Increase
"kg"
31.84
1.45
4749
6736
2737
aii
0.42
2.06
6.94
abb
3743
3.12
3.7.7
abb
IIMP..I"
0.89
2.23
39.35
abb
i'T.93
270
'5.41
9".75
2746
i7'o2
bibb
0.06
e'oi
bibb
207.10
75.40
12730
60.00
0.00
b.bb
16.40
43.bb
34.02
2.06
'abb'
'i'lfa
ig'Te
6.82
l7'26
2.14
0.99
0.37
0"S7
0.20
4.50
4.43
0.00
ao7
105 42
23.75
38l41
'f'i'i
367l2
% Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
1 .33%
0.06%
Ojg%
b72"f%
b7i"b%
b767%
6762%
b7b'9%
b7b'4"%
b76b%
ai4%
b7i3%
b'7i6%
b7bb%'
"~p7c«%^"""
0.04%
0.09%
1.20%
a"bb%'
6736%
0.08%
b7i6%
b73"b%
b'7b"7%
b7b3%
6766%
6766%
"67i8%
6766%
8.44%
3716%
6752"%"
2.51 %
0.00%
a"6b%
4J29%
i"78o"%"
1 .25%
a'6'9%
6766%
b72'b%
67e3%
6728%
6.65%
0.09%
6764%
6.62% "
6762"%"
b7bi'%
0.19%
0.19%
0.00%
6"."66%
4.42%
1 .00%
i767%'
b'73'6%
175i"%
NIDMC/
Kilogram
(w/o Tooling)
"+" Mass Decrease
"-" Mass Increase
"$/kg"
2 92 !
0.39
i7s7
i7e"b
TTi
1757
'(5.88)
6735
(6.58)
abb
(5.56)"
(3.42)
(23 85)
abb'
Z515II
2.23
(0.40)
(2.45)
b.bb
(2"7l4)
9.84
(5.80)
(1.98)
(3.95)
(329)
0.00
selei
(6755)
b.bb
(577)
(6.72)
(5.05)
(482)
0.00
b.bb
(4725)
(6.22)
(3.74)
3.32
abb
6784'
'(6.68)
(STiT)
(2. 47)
1.28
T'."6e
2"."5"i
6787
rib
0.51
050
0.00
0.84
(1.47)
(057)
(2.19)
(6.12)
(1.56)
NIDMC/
Kilogram
(w/ Tooling)
"+" Mass Decrease
"-" Mass Increase
"$/kg"
(2:63)
0.31
"iTB!
T68
5762
0.09
(3793)
6'5'i
(b'.5"b)'
6766
(sls'e)
(3.32)
(2271)
abb
~!MII
2.61
(0.06)
(2.47)
b.bb
(2'7b"i)
9.82
(s'Is'b)
(2721")
(4-08)
(2.86)
0.00
86761
(6-54)
b.bb
(577)
jUjy
(5.05)
(4.82)
0.00
o7bb
(4725)
(6.22)
(3.78)
3.32
6766
6.84
(6".85)
(5.06)
(1 62)
1.28
T7be"
275T~"
6787
rib
0.51
050
0.00
o'Sf
(1 -48)
(0-60)
(Ill)
(6.13)
("1.56)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 204
Table 3.1-1: System/Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Summary (Cont'd)
CO
<
rt-
7J
(3.66)
"(JOJ2)
(678)
(15.57)
67bb
(2.30)
(2.30)
6.66"
b.bb
(1.97)
(1.97)
1.62
IT??""
1.02
(17.44)
168757
7748
53.73
i"37
7.59
759
6766
b"766
0.00
266
767
ags
(13.49)
(13.49)
0.00
6766
6766
(518)
(5.18)
b.bb
0.00
7.26
7.26
NIDMC/
Kilogram
(w/ Tooling)
"+" Mass Decrease
"-" Mass Increase
"$/kg"
1.89
i""61
"'2748"""
1.02
Too
abb
(335)
(2.02)
.___
(ii744J
(6759)
(16. ib)
67bb
(2.30)
(2.30)
IlMlII
6'bb
(197)
(1.97)
1.77
j"86
116
(17.45)
168.57
748
53773
133
7.59
759
67bb
6766
o^oo
297
767
135
(13.44)
(13.44)
0.00
p7oq
000
(518)
(5.18)
6.66
0.00
727
727
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 205
In the vehicle level Cost Model Analysis Template (CMAT) (Table 3.1-2 - Table 3.1-4),
the cost elements that generate the NIDMCs at a vehicle system level are presented. The
costs, captured only for vehicle differences having an overall positive or negative cost
impact, are broken out for each of the major systems. As mentioned previously,
incremental costs are calculated by subtracting the new (i.e., mass reduced) component
costs from the baseline component costs. Thus a negative incremental cost indicates a
price increase of the mass-reduced technology over the baseline technology.
From the cost element breakdown within the table, the NIDMC shows an overall vehicle
increase of $2,074 The material cost increase is $1,570 while the labor and
manufacturing overhead costs increased to $139 and $263, respectively. The resulting
total manufacturing cost (TMC) was an increase of $1,972. Adding the total mark-up cost
of $102 associated with the TMC results in a NIDMC increase of $2,074. The NVH
counter measure costs are added to the final NIDMC as a lump sum estimate and are not
included in the CMAT values.
Also provided in the CMAT tables are the costs for the incremental tooling for the
baseline and mass-reduced Silverado vehicle. The incremental tooling expense for the
mass-reduced Silverado is approximately $7.3M less than the baseline Silverado.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 206
Table 3.1-2: Vehicle Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMAT): Baseline
z
§
o
1
i-
<
cc
Ul
UJ
0
O
X
g
»
£
ffl
CO
>-
STEM&SUI
3fi
a;
a
1
1
i
1
\
i
I 8
i s
I
I
l|l
£ s S
• 0O
f|f
hs!
! f 1
3 if
a5
§
^
§
•s
£
i
i *
Vlf
p
I
s
;
-
1
|
-3
•)«*S
UI91I
:--:
,
*
•
-
y
:,:
•
i
s
•
5
3
5
5
2
y.
I
=
1
£
IU
5
-
•
I
™
3
'
i
s
9
s
5
i
5
3
1
j
(~
S
.,.,
i
i
£
s
S
s
s
p
I
1
1
m
S
3
5
§
-:-•
,:;
--?
>
s
?
1
.':";
B
5
1
«r
I
I
?
e
.0
•J>
a
|
; '
s
S|
•v
K
a
r^
Q-
m
=
Body System Gf
•
2
I
c
.
'
i
l
'•'
•'
-•
-
1
|
_
A
=
Body System Gr
rt
1
«g
O
t/%
^
o
s
s
eo
S
1
1
t
^
^
I
i
i
i
•
3
e
s
s
s
5
I
1
s
1
j
ifl
5
-
s
i
•
s
s
s
s
S3
"
i
1
s
s
1
,
f-J
S
i
'
s
E
•
1,
s
«>
5
5
1
§
s
1
,
fn
S
-
•
'
2
•
:;
5
s
5
!
,^-
5
'
s
3
•
«
S
j*
3
2
£
g
—
5
5
ui
s
1
5
S
•
V
«
s
s
a
3
?
•*
6
5
«
.T1
2
-
8
5
i
•
3
S
(4
a
§
S
5
3
S
g
.
1st
-
r
'
K
•
'•
S
3
~
2
1
1
s
s
1
, )
~
:
s
Ml
'
s
•
S
5
2
S
g
i*
c
•
.-.
„
^t
t
1
0
•=
;•
•
1
'
S
•
s
K
2
"
5
i
«
«i
3
|
{
m
••
•.
'
•
|
I
•=
in
:-•
?
?
™
2
5
i
=
3
-
"
,
~i
•^
:<-
2
'
~
•
K
C
5
s
3
1
~
«
1
I
1
o
S
rh
•d
1
111
—
'-
j
iM
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 207
Table 3.1-3: Vehicle Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMAT): Mass-Reduced
z
O
s
o
u_
z
K
£
g
z
UJ
0
>:
o
o
o
£
Q
Q
Z
O
Q_
0
o
STEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
&
$
1
I
£
1
=1
1
g
£
2
U
o> 5~
* ><
£
1
1
|||
? sS
£00
032
1 at
0 $ f
3g
[III
" 3*
1 ^,
"II
t*.
Q
a;
Q
1
1
{I
Lit
Mil
I
i
—
s
Name/Descriplion
JSjsAg
uuen
§
a
Q
1_J
ID
§
§
Q
Q
Q
a
o
Q
Q
=
1
§
~
3
ai
3
S
2
1
2
s
*
*~
I
i
-
1
<=
in
CM
S
GO
i
1
«i
3
i
g
«O
ansmission
i—
0,
19,663.00
8
R
s
£
8
§
s
CN
S
S
s
i
§
§
s
*
m
n
n
5>
s
CO
s
0
s
s
o
o
06
3
0
cxi
CO
O
LH'
^
Body System Group -A- ( Body Sheetmetal)
ai
(£>
s
CO
CO
CO
u-j
^
ea
s
5
csi
CO
§
1
C
o
s
S
Body System Group -B- (Body Interior)
'
5
CO
o>
CO
o
^
"*
a
O
tn
(NJ
S
S
g^
^~
Body System Group -C- (Body Exterior Trim)
'
^
5
to
s
(N
s
5
§
o
^
CTl
CO
S
CN
^~
Body System Group -D- {Glazing & Body Mechatronics)
3
i
^
U3
4
&
&
•«r
s
s
s
10
1
s
~
g
to
spension
A
S
•»
1
S
^
^
S
i
^
i
a
c
"
*~
I
.1
Q
,0
S
1
§
ss
s
§
m
3
g
s
°
K
fi
1
m
m
CO
CO
S
•
1
3
S
ame and Mounting
u.
-
S
C
2
*>
^
s
S
S
s
1°.
I
1
UJ
o>
CD
U3
g.
S
s
s
s
^~
"oS
0
0,
s
1
3
s
S
<•>
s
s
«•>
i
g
s
g
**
X
°
s
3
5
3
N
N
S
S
2
8
5
mate Control
o
CM
=
i
%
X
1
2
1
8
3
2
s
s
o, Gage & Warning Device
C
s
^"
sctrical Power Supply
m
•«*
CO
•
Vehicle Entertainment
C
^
e
«J
n
3
2
s
s
s
s
3
|
^1
S
CO
i
S
s
2
S
3
5
1
5
"
s
metrical Distribution & Electrical Control
UJ
CO
(O
'
1
sctronic Features
d
E
CO
oo^
(0
s
CO
(O
CN
CM
CM
H
C-J
CO
C71
O>
O>
i
s
s
LO
S
Lfl
co
irT
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 208
Table 3.1-4: Vehicle Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMAT): Differential
PACKAGE
>-
o
o
o
z
o
UJ
i—
g
LU
Q
S
O
a.
^
P
i—
to
O
O
£
INCREME
STEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
5
i
1
!
S
t
2
J
u
_
11
g
1
Componenl'
Assembly Cost
Impel to OEM
0. 1 —
S "*
*- C 3"
s a. i
"II
1
i
i
|i
c B
1
1
I
i
J81SXS
uwi
3
s>
s
3
3
Ct
s
a
1 1
_>
a
1
c »
s
u
5
§
S
-"
*^
5
^
S
|
:S
~
S
~
S:
o
-
=
s
i
B
g
L^.
°2
tf>.
"
™
;.".
.•-:.
'-
"*
1
£
S
CV!
g
1
(131199)
-i
i
CD
-f
s
m
1?
r*
S
s
S
o^
g
T^ O4
«> JM
pii >-i'i
cr> c^
^j • /
S .7.
S S
C3 cy
il
at t*i
^ S
§ §
r^ g
g s
Body System Group -A- ( Body Sheetmetal)
Body System Group -8- (Body Interior)
•rt-
a
3
•'.»
^r>
1"->
§
3
^
^'
=>
s
Body System Group -C- (Body Exterior Trim)
2
«•
g
S
=
0
'— '
Ci
-
.
''-'
'":-
^>
t>
1
t>
*fl
en
'F5
."
<3.
4
a.
o
O
E
S
s
a
"
s
1
s
'
S
•~
f-
*
"
K
1
f>
S
-
s
s
S
s
5
~
s
*•
s
s
1
1
1
s
--
«
s
2
!
S3
™
§
..;
S
r-
S
s
-
|
I
I
CO
S
<•
1
1
•
S
S
s
I
i
i
IJ
S
i-
~
™
a
r-.;
I
g
s
r:
»
^
i
s
Ul
g
00
K
B
s
•
3
3
K
S
2
-
3
S
3
n
a
i
?
i
1
;V
K
-
ra
s
S
m
s;
s
a
E
I
|
WJ
e
s
"
S
"
s
s
s
0
"-
s
tmate Control
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 209
As shown in Table 3.1-4, approximately 76% of the NIDMC increase is associated with
material cost increases ($1,570). A breakdown of the primary material consumption, for
both the baseline production stock and mass reduced vehicle, helps explain this fact.
For components and assemblies in each vehicle system, the primary material composition
(e.g., steel, aluminum, magnesium, plastic, rubber, glass) were recorded for both the
baseline vehicle and the mass-reduced version. These values are considered good
directional estimates only since not all components were disassembled to a single
material evaluation status; especially those components not evaluated in the detailed mass
reduction and cost analysis step.
In Figure 3.1-2 the summation of the system compositions equaling the vehicle totals are
shown. The category referenced as miscellaneous "Misc." includes items where material
composition by mass was not calculated (e.g. mass of items not included in analysis)
and/or where material indentification was not relevant (e.g. fluids, paints, etc.). From the
values presented in the pie-charts it is evident that the largest contributor to mass
reduction came in the form of wrought aluminum substitution. The introduction of more
magnesium and engineered plastics also played a role in vehicle mass reduction, though
at a much smaller extent to wrought aluminum.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 210
Production Stock Vehicle Primary Material Make-up
2.1%
1.0%
11. Steel & Iron (1,412kg)
12. H.S. Steel (175kg)
3. Aluminum - Cast (209kg)
14. Aluminum - Wrought (Negligible)
5. Magnesium ( Negligible)
6. Foam/Carpet (24kg)
7. Rubber (105kg)
8. Plastic (166kg)
9. Glass (51kg)
10. Misc. (244kg)
Mass-Reduced Vehicle Primary Material Make-Up
1.3%
• 1. Steel & Iron (433kg)
• 2. H.S. Steel (203kg)
3. Aluminum - Cast (200kg)
• 4. Aluminum - Wrought (330kg)
• 5. Magnesium (70kg)
• 6. Foam/Carpet (24kg)
7. Rubber(87kg)
8. Plastic (180kg)
• 9. Glass (37kg)
10. Misc. (226kg)
Figure 3.1-3: General Material Make-up of Silverado Production Vehicle and Mass-Reduced
Vehicle
In Table 3.1-1 and Table 3.1-4 it is evident that the Body System Group -A- was the
single largest contributor to vehicle mass-reduction (8.4%) making up nearly 37% of the
overall mass reduction and accounting for nearly 58% of the cost increase. Further 89%
of the mass reduction cost increase for Body System Group -A- was in material costs: the
substitution of lighter more expensive wrought aluminum for heavier, less expensive coil
steel. Aluminum costs three times more than steel per kilogram, but the cost premium is
mitigated to some extent because the aluminum design weighs less: In this study,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 211
aluminum is 64% that of the steel design. Section 4.18 covers additional details on the
mass reduction and incremental costs associated with Body System Group -A-.
The process of producing aluminum from bauxite is a very energy intensive process.
Alternatively, aluminum ingots can be produced from recycled aluminum requiring much
less energy; energy conversion costs approaching that of steel. So neglecting economic
basics from the pricing equation (i.e., law of supply and demand), one can see how a
significant increase in aluminum production over the long-run could help drive the cost
of aluminum down.
In 2013 approximately 69M vehicles were sold worldwide.[23] According to the European
Aluminum Association, the primary aluminum consumption in 2013 worldwide was
50.2M[24] tonnes in 2013. If every car sold in the future used 100 kg of additional
aluminum, the world market consumption would grow by 15% assuming no grow in
other markets (200 kg = 30%, 300kg =45%, and 400 kg = 60%).
Though, growth in the aluminum market will certainly be challenged by growth in other
advance light-weight material industries such as the steel, magnesium, carbon fiber and
engineering plastics. The growth in alternative material markets will also have an impact
on pricing in future years. In this study, no attempt was made to predict where material
pricing would be in the 2020-2025 timeframe and how potentially lower cost materials
would impact the overall results.
The cost curves shown below highlight the fact that not all mass reduction comes with an
increase in direct manufacturing costs. In several examples material substitution,
component substitution and/or component consolidation yielded a mass reduction result
with a cost save. In Figure 3.1-4, approximately 6.3% vehicle mass-reduction was
achieved at zero cost (without consideration to secondary mass-savings). When
secondary mass-savings is considered, approximately 8% vehicle mass reduction was
achieved at no cost. It should be pointed out that although the primary objective of the
analysis was to derive ideas that created significant mass reduction opportunities, for
some components the cost benefit of the change overshadowed the mass reduction
benefit. The resultant is a build-up of a cost reduction credit which offset some of the
more expensive mass reduction ideas. Approximately half of the mass reduction
component/assembly/subsystem concepts selected generated a net cost savings of $259,
contributing about 79 kg to the overall vehicle mass reduction. The remaining mass
reduction concepts cost approximately $2,402 and reduced the vehicle mass an additional
23. "Number of cars sold worldwide from 1990 to 2014 (in million units)," statista, accessed June 23, 2014.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/
24 "Primary Aluminum Consumption 2011-2103," European Aluminum Association, accessed June 23, 2014.
http://www.alueurope.eu/consumption-primarv-aluminium-consumption-in-world-regions/
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 212
397 kilograms. These numbers do not include secondary mass savings (i.e., mass
reduction of 83.9 kg and cost savings of $68.74) nor the NVH countermeasure offsets
(i.e., mass increase of 50 kg and cost increase of $150).
f-n
1?
^ £4
1
i
5 a
Aluminum Intensive Body and HSS
Intensive Frame w/ Mass Compounding ^\
+>+* ^ "
A* r*
AA ^
/o 5% 4 * 10% 15%
ttLm~
Aluminum Intensive Bodyand
Frarrie w/ Mass Compounding,
20% 25%
jmf*
^^' HSS Intensive Body and Frame w/
^^F Mass Compounding
<^
f
*
% Vehicle Mass Reduction
w/o Compounding
Aw/ Compounding
Figure 3.1-4: Light-Duty Pickup Truck Cost Curves With and Without Mass Compounding
Figure 3.1-5 and Figure 3.1-6 represent cost curves developed with components and
assemblies from each of their respective evaluation groups. Both figures include
component mass reduction data points with secondary mass-savings. Note in Figure
3.1-6 there are no mass reduction data points which exist as cost reductions. Not having
the ability to dilute the costs with cost savings or lower cost mass reduction ideas results
in a much higher cost per kilogram for mass reduction.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 213
1
•to-
c
o
1
•o
V
K
TO
"5
3
(_l
'o
0
C_)
Oi
3
>
$4.0 -
0
-$2.0
Cost Curve in 2020-2025 Timeframe
Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group
(Inclusive of Secondary Mass-Savings) _»•*"**
,. -»«•"
'/. 2% 4% 6« .---&%' 10% 12% 14%
J»*"'
f *• '
s'
*r
^
*
/'
•
% Vehicle Mass Reduction (VMR)
Figure 3.1-5: Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group Cost Curve Inclusive of Secondary
Mass-Savings
Average Cost of Cumulative Mass Reduction ($/kg)
$6.50 -
$6.25 -
$5.75 -
$5.50 -
$5.25 -
$5.00 -
$4.75
$4.50 -
$4.25 -
$3.25
$3.00 -
$2.75
$2.50 -
$2.00
$1.75
$0.50 -
$0.25 -
$0.00 -
0
Radiator Support
Cost Curv3 in 2020-202^ Tim^frarne Reareumper .-^
Body Subsystem Components/Assemblies KearuoorAssemw.es ^ -"r-aiBoBo,
/ j-- - Cabin +
(Inclusive of Secondary Mass-Savings)
,~'~
_--'
*•-''
Front Door Assemblies
,'-'
, R .---: +
Fiuiil Bumper Hood Assembly
Full Frame Cargo Box Gate
Front Fenders Note" ComP°nent $As data Pomts inc!ude
Front Fenders, Front Bumper, Full Frame and Radiator
Structure.
K 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%
% Vehicle Mass Reduction (VMR)
Figure 3.1-6: Selective Body Subsystem Components/Assemblies Cost Curve Inclusive of Secondary
Mass Savings
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 214
3.2 Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis Results Overview - Vehicle Systems
Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.17 contain system summaries which highlight the major mass
reduction ideas selected for each individual vehicle system.
For a more in-depth component review, a hyperlink to the parts location within the body
of the relevant whitepaper in Section 4.1 is provided where both mass reduction and
incremental cost impact are presented at the vehicle system level (e.g., Engine),
subsystem level (e.g., Crank Drive) and sub-subsystem level (e.g., Piston). For each
vehicle system evaluated, a major section (e.g., Section 4.1 Engine) has been devoted.
Each vehicle system is broken down further into subsystems, each represented with its
own subheadings (e.g., Section 4.1.1 Frame and Mounting, Section 4.1.2 Crankdrive,
etc.).
Note that at the conclusion of each vehicle system section, references to the cited works
can be found.
3.2.1 Engine System Overview
This following section identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Engine System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the
baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Not including secondary mass savings, the
engine system mass was reduced by 23.8 kg (9.9%). This increased the cost by $114.63,
or $4.82 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by .97%.
With secondary mass savings, the additional mass saving was 8.0 kg for a total system
mass reduction of 31.8 kg (1.3% curb weight reduction). The increase in costs was
reduced by $21.81 due to secondary mass savings resulting in a total system cost of -
$92.83 or-$2.92 per kg.
Table 3.2-1 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. Only sub-subsystems with significant mass savings were included
in the table, and account for over 80% of the total mass savings found on the engine. The
table does not include secondary mass savings and associated cost benefits. The
additional benefits of secondary mass savings are included in the detail engine system
review (Section 4.1).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 215
Table 3.2-1: Engine System Mass Reduction Summary
CO
•-=;
UJ_
(O
gj
01
01
"01"
01
01
of
"01"
01
"67
01
01
01
01
01
IT
01
01
01
Subsystem
"do"
02
03
..........
05"
06
07
w
09"
"id"
11
12
13
"14"
15
"16"
17
60
70
Sub-Subsystem
bb"
00
00
Ob"
"do
00
"do"
bb"
"do
bb"
00
00
00
bb"
00
bb"
00
00
00
Description
Engine System
Engine Frames. Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Bloc. ; Su-syste™
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Driye Subsystem
Accessor,1 Dnve Subsystem
Air Intake Suisyste--
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Ccclinq Sucsyste"!
Induction Air ChaiCjintj 8u;.3yste "
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breather Sucsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic. Electrical
Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator,
etc.)
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,;•:•
1.10
2.38
0.00
3.30
116
b"."i92
0.415
173"
0.941
b.bb
3.15
3.01
3.31
0.00
o'bd
0.00
0.386
2.23
23.8
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;-;.
0.348
2.11
0.00
3.07
1.21
0.126
0.00
b-325
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.112
b"457
0.00
bib
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.0
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
145
4.49
0.00
6.36"
2.37
olis
0.415
2-06
0.941
bib
3.43
3.12
3J7"
0.00
bob
0.00
0.886
2.23
31.8
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"
$0.58
$4.10
$0.00
$9"35
$3.69
$0-45
$0.00
$bld
$0.00
sold
$0.97
$0.55
$2l'i
$b-bd
$b-bd
ibid
$0.00
$0-00
$21.81
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" B
$0.57
$7.05
$0.00
"$id'.i5"
$9.75
$0-50
42.44
$0-73
40.54
$0.00
419.03
410.69
"489:95
$0.00
""solo
$0.00
$197
40.89
-$92.83
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$./kg"
$0.39
$157
$0.00
$160
$4.11
$157""
45.88
$0-35
40.58
$0.00
45.56
-$3.42
"423.85"
$0.00
$"d"lb"
$0.00
$2.23
40.40
-$2.92
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
dl%
0.1%
b".b%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
d"2%
0.0%
b.d%
0.0%
0.0%
01%
1.30%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
Mass savings opportunities were identified for the following components: crankshaft,
connecting rod, cylinder block, cylinder head covers, camshafts, pulleys, exhaust
manifolds, oil pans, water pump, radiator, and accessory drive bracket.
Crankshaft: The crankshaft mass was reduced by changing the cast crankshaft to a
hollow cast design. The main bearing journals were cast with a core to remove excess
material. Mass was reduced by 4.3% from 24.0 kg to 23.0 kg.
Production applications include the BMW 4.4L V8 and the Nissan 4.5L V8.
Connecting Rod: Connecting rod mass reduction was achieved by changing the primary
forming operation from powder forged to billet forged. The connecting rod mass was
reduced by 19.8% from 5.41 kg to 4.34 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 216
FEV validated this change by creating CAD models for both connecting rods and
performing fatigue analysis. Mahle manufactures connecting rods using this technology.
Cylinder Block: Cylinder block mass was reduced by replacing cast iron bore liners with
plasma liner technology. Mass was reduced by 6.2% from 47.1 kg to 44.2 kg.
Production vehicles utilizing this technology include Nissan GT-R, 2011 Shelby Mustang
GT500, and Volkswagen Lupo.
Cylinder Head Covers: Aluminum valve covers were replaced by plastic. Mass was
reduced by 44.0% from 2.64 kg to 1.48 kg.
Production examples include Chrysler's 4.7L V8 and the Ford Duratec® 2.0L.
Pulleys: The idler, crank, and AC compressor pulleys were all found to have
lightweighting opportunities. The steel idler pulley was replaced with a plastic design,
which reduced mass by 58.0% from 0.455 kg to 0.191 kg. Plastic idler pulleys are
commonplace and have proven durability.
The AC compressor pulley was changed from steel to plastic, which reduced mass by
59.8% from 0.695 kg to 0.279 kg. The Volkswagen Polo is a production example
containing a plastic AC compressor pulley.
Exhaust Manifold: Cast iron exhaust manifolds were replaced by fabricated sheet steel
manifolds. Mass was reduced by 26.0% from 12.2 kg to 9.0 kg.
Production examples include the Toyota Avensis 2.0-R4 4V. Fabricated manifolds with
integrated catalyst are common for quick light off.
Oil Pan: Mass reduction of the oil pan was achieved by replacing aluminum with
magnesium. Mass was reduced by 25% from 5.27 kg to 3.96 kg. The Nissan GT-R oil
pan is constructed from magnesium.
Steel baffle plates were used to control oil flow within the oil pan region. These stamped
steel plates were changed to plastic. Mass was reduced by 70.6% from 1.65 kg to 0.49 kg.
The Ford Mustang utilizes plastic for this component.
Water Pump: The conventional mechanical water pump was replaced with an electric
water pump. Mass was reduced by 51.9% from 4.68 kg to 2.43 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 217
Electric water pumps are found on vehicles such as the BMW 328, 528, and X3/5.
Radiator: The radiator found on Silverado is designed for a range of applications. A
radiator designed specifically for the 5.3L Silverado could be smaller reducing
component and fluid mass. Mass was reduced by 4.0% from 6.785 kg to 6.520 kg.
MuCell® applied to the fan shroud and fan blades, which yielded an additional mass
savings of 0.32 kg.
Accessory Drive Bracket: The accessory drive bracket provides mounting for both the
alternator and power steering pump. This aluminum component was replaced with a
magnesium version and the power steering provision eliminated as this feature is no
longer needed with electric power steering. Mass was reduced by 50.5% from 3.69 kg to
1.83kg.
An example of a magnesium bracket can be found on the Nissan 350Z.
3.2.2 Transmission System Overview
This following section identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Transmission System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements
of the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Not including secondary mass
savings, the transmission system mass was reduced by 34.19 kg (23.53%). This increased
the cost by $128.20, or $3.75 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb
weight by 1.43%. With secondary mass savings, the additional mass savings was 5.17 kg
for a total system mass reduction of 39.4 kg (1.60% curb weight reduction). The increase
in cost was reduced by $31.64 due to secondary mass savings resulting in a total system
cost increase of $96.57 or $2.45 per kg.
Table 3.2-2 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The table does not include secondary mass savings and associated
cost benefits. The additional benefits of secondary mass savings are included in the
detailed Transmission Section review (Section 4.2).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 218
Table 3.2-2: Transmission System Mass and Cost Reduction Summary
U)
•-=:
Hi
(D
3
02
•p2
-Q2
••jJ2~
"jj2-
••jj2"
••jJ2"
02
02
02
•pj"
••02
•QJ-
••p2-
Subsystem
00
..........
02
"63"
04
'as
06
07
08
09
..........
jT
"12"
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
oo"
00
oo"
00
oo"
"o'n
00
00
00
"oo"
oo"
"oo"
00
Transmission System
Edema! Co ""orients
Case Subsystem
(Sear Tram Subsystem
Internal Clutch Subsystem
Launch Clutch Suosystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanise Suosystem
Misc. Subsystem
Electric Motor & Contiols subsystem
Transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Contiols Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i>
bib
10.7
2.05
4.23
8"62
2.42
0.872
0.00
0.060
b"."bo
000
5"27
0.00
34.2
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
bib
1.27
b""6s"o
1.18
l".13
0.044
0.146
0.00
0.00
o'bb
0.00
OJ43
0.00
5.17
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
'W m
bib
11.9
2.70
5.41
9L7
2.46
1.02
b.bb
0.064
b'o'b
0.00
e'b'i
0.00
39.4
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
'•$"(2,
$blb
-$30.60
"$24l8
-$39.94
"42173
-$11.52
45.03
$0.00
$5.24
W'oo
$0.00
"-$43"81
$0.00
-$128.20
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"IT"
» (2)
j'bl'b"
$5.09
$2"41
$8.53
$2"42
$1.79
$1.68
$0.00
$0.31
Woo
$0.00
$9.41
$0.00
$31.64
(Decrease;
Cost
Impact
Total
"S"(2>
$blb
425.50
$26.59
431.41
419"32"
49.73
43.35
$0.00
$5.55
jo'ob
$0.00
"439"4b"
$0.00
-$96.57
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
$b".oo
42.14
$9"84
45.80
-ST.98
43.95
-$3.29
$0.00
$86.61
Woo
$0.00
46.55
$0.00
-$2.45
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
blb%
0.49%
b"ii%
0.22%
b"4b%
0.10%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
b""b"b"%
0.00%
0.25%
0.00%
1.60%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Transmission
subsystem are the torque converter, case subsystems, drive gears and shafts, and the oil
pump.
Case Subsystem: The mass reduction idea for the Case Subsystem is to change the
component material from aluminum to magnesium. The individual baseline component
mass was 30.7 kg and the redesign mass was 20.1 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings
of 10.6 kg (34.7%) compared to the aluminum units.
One production example of a magnesium transmission case is the Mercedes-Benz 7G-
TRONIC. General Motors also has approximately 1 million GMT800 full-size trucks and
sport utility vehicles (SUV) that are produced annually that have a magnesium transfer
case in their design.
Gear Train Subsystem: The mass reduction idea for the sun, ring, and planet gears was
to change the base component material from standard gear steel to high-strength options.
The individual baseline component mass was 10.9 kg while the redesign mass was 9.28
kg, which resulted in an overall mass savings of 1.64 kg (15%) compared to the standard
steel components.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 219
Internal Clutch Subsystem: The mass reduction idea for the clutch and brake hubs was
to change the base component material from 4140 and powder metal to C61 and MMC.
The individual baseline component mass was 20.74 kg, with the redesign mass 16.90 kg,
resulting in an overall mass savings of 3.84 kg (18.5%) for these components.
Torque Converter: The mass reduction idea for the torque converter was to use a full
aluminum torque converter assembly for this application instead of the industry standard
steel unit. Aluminum torque converters are presently used in off-road, racing, heavy
industrial equipment, and some automotive applications. A cast design of an aluminum
turbine, impeller, and housing will reduce the assembly steps in process and make for a
simpler assembly.
The individual baseline component mass was 19.3 kg, and the redesign mass was 10.7 kg
for an overall mass savings of 8.62 kg (44.6%) for both arms compared to the steel units.
Oil Pump: The mass reduction idea for the oil pump was to change the base component
material from cast iron to aluminum. The individual baseline component mass was 4.71
kg, and the redesign mass 3.27 kg, which resulted in a mass savings of 1.44 kg (30.6%)
compared to the cast iron units.
Transfer Case Subsystem: The major mass reduction ideas for the transfer case were the
gear materials and drive shaft configuration. The gears were standard gear steels and the
shafts solid steel bars. These were converted to high-strength gear steels and hollow drive
shafts, which are currently used by OEMs in their systems. The change to the base
component materials mass was 12.75 kg and the redesign mass was 10.50 kg, resulting in
an overall mass savings of 2.25 kg (17.3%) for these components.
3.2.3 Body System Group -B- (Interior) Overview
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Body
Group -B- system with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of
the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Table 3.2-3 shows a summary of the
calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each sub-subsystem evaluated. This project
recorded a system mass reduction of 34.0 kg (13.8%) at a cost increase of -$127.23, or -
$3.747 kg. The contribution of the Body Group -B- system to the overall vehicle mass
reduction is 1.39%. There are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 220
Table 3.2-3: Body System Group -B- Mass Reduction Summary
ta
•-=:
E
CD
-
"03
03
03
03
03
03
03
en
o-
«
*<
S3.
3
op
05
06
07
10
12
20
V)
£=
C-
co
£=
cr
M
*<
(D
3
00
00
do
00
do
00
00
Description
Body Group B
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Su;:svste™
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" !•;•
2.06
0.00
4.72
19.2
6.82
1.26
34.0
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ,1)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i>
2.06
0.00
4.72
19.2
6.82
1.26
34.0
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$•• B
$6.84
$0.00
$32.23
-$127.89
-$35.29
-$3.12
-$127.23
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$",2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$6.84
$0.00
$32.23
-$127.89
-$35.29
-$3.12
-$127.23
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$3.32
$0.00
$6.84
-$6.68
-$5.17
-$2.47
-$3.74
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.08%
0.00%
0.19%
0.78%
0.28%
0.05%
1.39%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Body Group -B-
system are the front seats back and bottom frames, 60/40 seat back and bottom frames
and the cross car beam.
Front Driver/Passenger Back and Bottom Seat Frames: The mass reduction idea for
the front driver and passenger back and bottom seat frames was to change the base steel-
welded seat construction to continuous fiber reinforced plastic tape and laminate
construction. The baseline component mass was 11.59 kg, while the redesign mass was
5.80 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 5.79 kg (50%).
The continuous fiber reinforced plastic tape and laminate construction was developed by
BASF®. The laminate has been put into production on the Opal Astra vehicles front seat
bottom frame. BASF® has also passed OEM test requirements on this technology for the
front seat back frames.
Rear 60/40% Seat Frames: The mass reduction idea for the 60/40 seat back and bottom
frames was to change the base welded steel construction to die-cast magnesium by
Meridian®. The individual baseline component mass was 16.20 kg, with the redesign
mass at 7.87 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 8.33 kg (51%).
Some of Meridian's products include the Ford F150 bolster, the Dodge Viper front of
dash, the Lincoln MKT lift gate, GM instrument panels, as well as seat frames for Ford's
Explorer and Flex, the Mercury Mountaineer, and the Chevrolet Corvette.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 221
Cross Car Beam: The mass reduction idea for the cross car beam was to change the
base-welded steel construction to die-cast magnesium by Meridian. The individual
baseline component mass was 11.92 kg, and the redesign mass was 6.48 kg, resulting in
an overall mass savings of 5.44 kg (48%).
3.2.4 Body System -C- (Exterior) Overview
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Body
System -C- (Exterior) System with the intent to meet the function and performance
requirements of the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Table 3.2-4 is a
summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each sub-subsystem
evaluated. This project recorded a system mass reduction of 2.14 kg (5.28%) at a cost
decrease of $2.73, or $1.28 per kg. The contribution of the Body Group -C- system to the
overall vehicle mass reduction was 0.09%. There are no compounding mass reductions
for this system.
Table 3.2-4: Body System Group -C- Mass Reduction Summary
U)
*<
a
d
03
03
09
09
09
CO
o-
t/i
*<
W
(D
00
01
01
01
01
in
C
D-
cn
C
D-
«
a.
n
3
"or!
00
00
00
00
Description
Body Group C
Extend Tri™ and Oiria-entaticn bu;svste"
Rear View Mirror? Si.i::s','stem
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" !•;•
0.989
0.373
0.576
0.200
2.14
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"{i,
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
0.989
0.373
0.575
0.200
2.14
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
•T(2)
$1.05
$0-94
$0.50
$0.24
$2.73
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"S"<2>
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
T'(2)
$1.05
$0.94
$0.50
$0.24
$2.73
(Decrease)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"I/kg"
$1.06
$2.51
$0.87
$1.20
$1.28
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.04%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.09%
(1) "+" = mass decrease,"-" = mass increase
(2) "-"-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The minimal mass reductions of this system were to use PolyOne® injection molding
process to reduce the mass of the plastic components.
3.2.5 Body System Group -D- Overview
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Body
System Group -D- System with the intent to meet the function and performance
requirements of the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Table 3.2-5 is a
summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each sub-subsystem
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 222
evaluated. This project recorded a system mass reduction of 4.50 kg (8.85%) at a cost
decrease of $2.30, or $0.51 per kg. The contribution of the Body Group -D- system to the
overall vehicle mass reduction was 0.18%. There are no compounding mass reductions
for this system.
Table 3.2-5: Body Group -D- Mass Reduction Summary
t/J
*<
'£.
3
03
03
03
03
en
cr
«
a
3
66
11
14
16
in
c
D-
a>
c
O"
2.
a
3
00
00
00
00
Description
Body System (Group D) Glazing
Glass (Glazing; Fra^e and Mechanis- 8u:syste~
Handles Loc;s Latches and Mechanises ducsystem
'/Vipers and Washers 3u:syste~
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
4.429
0.000
0.074
4.50
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"
4.43
0.00
0.07
4.50
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$2.23
$0.00
$0.06
$2.30
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$2.23
$0.00
$0.06
$2.30
(Decrease)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$0.50
$0.00
$0.84
$0.51
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.18%
(1) "-»-" = mass decrease. "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease,"-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The minimal mass reduction for this system was in the Glass (Glazing) subsystem. The
reduction made was to thin the glass in the windshield, back window, and rear side door
glass.
3.2.6 Suspension System Overview
This following section identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Suspension System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of
the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Not including secondary mass savings,
the suspension system mass was reduced by 83.1 kg (27.6%). This increased the cost by
$260.84, or $3.14 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by
3.39%. With secondary mass savings, the additional mass savings was 22.4 kg for a total
system mass reduction of 105.4 kg (4.30% curb weight reduction). The increase in cost
was reduced by $105.94 due to secondary mass savings resulting in a total system cost of
$154.90 or $1.47 per kg.
Table 3.2-6 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The table does not include secondary mass savings and associated
cost benefits. The additional benefits of secondary mass savings are included in the
detailed Suspension System review (Section 4.6).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 223
Table 3.2-6: Suspension System Mass Reduction Summary
CO
'-=;
tn_
-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Front Suspension
Subsystem are the lower control arms, upper control arms, steering knuckles, and the
stabilizer bar.
Lower Control Arm: The mass reduction idea for the lower control arms was to change
the component material from cast iron to aluminum. The individual baseline component
mass was 9.55 kg and the redesign mass was 5.10 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings
of 8.37 kg (46.6%) compared to the steel units.
GM offered in 2009 two XFE (eXtra Fuel Economy) models for the Chevrolet Silverado
and the GMC Sierra, which included among other fuel saving ideas, aluminum lower
control arms. The aluminum control arms were eventually switched back to cast iron due
to cost-reduction efforts. GM announced that the 2014 Silverado will come equipped
with aluminum control arms and aluminum knuckles.
Upper Control Arm: The mass reduction ideas for the upper control arms were to
normalize the control arm dimensions described as follows based on the 2012 Dodge
Durango, and change the component material from forged steel to cast magnesium.
The normalizing process compares the gross vehicle weight (GVW) of the Durango to
the GVW of the Silverado and adjusts the mass of the Silverado control arm, up or down,
based on the ratios of the two vehicles' GVW and the component mass of the Durango
control arm. As a result of this normalization process the baseline mass of the Silverado
control arm was reduced by 1.72 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 224
The individual baseline component mass was 2.28 kg and the redesign mass was 0.759
kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 3.04 kg (66.7%) for both arms compared to the
steel units.
Steering Knuckle: The mass reduction idea for the steering knuckles is to change the
base component material from steel to aluminum. The individual baseline component
mass was 7.67 kg with the redesign mass 3.73 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of
7.88 kg (51.4%) for both knuckles compared to steel.
Leaf Spring Assembly: The major component contributing to the mass reduction within
the Rear Suspension subsystem was the rear leaf spring assembly. The mass reduction
idea for the rear leaf spring assemblies was to change the base component material from
steel to glass fiber reinforced plastic. The individual baseline component mass was 26.2
kg and the redesign mass 10.5 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 31.4 kg (60%)
for both leaf spring assemblies compared to the steel units.
LITEFLEX® LLC, a manufacturer of OEM composite leaf springs, has supplied
composite leaf springs since 1998 to support production requirements on the Sprinter
commercial vehicles, namely the NCV3 Sprinter. Other vehicles using Liteflex composite
leafs springs are the Chevrolet Corvette and the Land Rover. Liteflex also produces
composite leaf springs for heavy-duty truck applications for Kenworth, Peterbilt,
Freightliner, and International.
Liteflex states "Suspension designers realized a 55% reduction in weight when replacing
two steel leaf springs with Liteflex lightweight composite springs for 3/4 ton 4x4 pickup.
The original, all-steel design tipped the scales at 69 pounds while the hybrid steel-and-
composite version weighed in at just 31 pounds."
The major component contributing to the mass reduction within the Shock Absorber
subsystem was the Front Strut Coil Spring.
Front Strut Coil Spring: The mass reduction idea for the front strut coil springs is to
change the base component material from steel to the Mubea HSLA steel coil. The
individual baseline component mass was 5.35 kg, while the redesign mass was 2.73 kg,
resulting in an overall mass savings of 5.24 kg (49.0%) for both springs compared to the
steel units.
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Wheels and Tires
subsystem are the road wheels, road tires, spare wheel, and spare tire.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 225
Road Wheels: The mass reduction idea for the road wheels is to change the base
component material from aluminum to ultra-light weight forged aluminum. The total
baseline component mass was 48.5 kg and the total redesign mass 42.4 kg, resulting in an
overall mass savings of 6.1 kg (12.6%) for all four wheels compared to the steel units.
Road Tires: The mass reduction idea for the road tires was to normalize the base tires to
the 2007 Ford F-150 road tires. The total baseline component mass was 69.5 kg, and the
redesign mass 63.9 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 5.60 kg (8%) for all four
tires compared to the Silverado road tires.
Spare Wheel: The mass reduction idea for the spare wheel was to change the base
component material from stamped steel to cast aluminum. The baseline component mass
was 15.5 kg and the redesign mass 9.24 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 6.26
kg (40.4%) compared to the steel unit.
Spare Tire: The mass reduction idea for the spare tire was to replace the base component
with the 2006 Dodge Ram spare tire. The baseline component mass was 17.0 kg and the
redesign mass was 14.9 kg, an overall mass savings of 2.1 kg (12.4%) compared to the
Silverado spare tire.
3.2.7 Driveline System Overview
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Driveline
System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the baseline
vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado).
The Driveline Subsystem contributed a system mass reduction of 20.5 kg. This mass
reduction provided a vehicle cost save of $38.01, which equates to $1.86 per kg. The
overall vehicle mass reduction contribution is 0.83%. Table 3.2-7 is a summary of the
calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each vehicle subsystem evaluated. There
are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 226
Table 3.2-7: Driveline System Mass Reduction Summary
tfl
*-=:
(n_
(D
3
05
05
05
06
05
05
06
Subsystem
00
01
02
"03"
04
05
"07"
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
"bo"
00
00
"do"
Description
Driveline System
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Housed Axle Su:svste~
Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Half Shaft Subsystem
4WD Driveline Control System
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"k9" !-}
2,10
10.5
6"49
1.36
0.00
d'."b'd
20.4
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i>
0.00
0.00
bib'
0.00
0.00
d'."bd
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
2.10
10.5
6"4"9"
1.36
0.00
d'"d'd
20.4
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2)
$3.38
$25.78
$6.27
S2 58
$0.00
'j"d"'d'd
$38.01
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$"bl'b
SO 00
$0.00
sold
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
V«
$3.38
$25.78
$6.27
$2.58
$0.00
j"d"'d'd
$38.01
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
$1.61
$2.46
$0.97
$1.90
$0.00
j"d'."b'd
$1.86
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.09%
0.43%
0.26%
0.06%
0.00%
d'"dd%
0.83%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The Driveline System was coupled to the engine/transmission assembly and is designed
to deliver the energy generated by the engine, passed through the transmission to the
wheels.
In four-wheel drive (4WD) mode, the transmission provides energy to the transfer case.
The output shaft of the transfer case and the front axle differential are all connected with
the same type of universal/yoke/driveshaft assembly as the rear axle. The front
differential operates in the same manner as the rear, when engaged.
The Driveline System is made up of six subsystems. The Silverado analysis and mass
reduction efforts focused on the top four subsystems. The last two subsystems have little
mass in the total system mass of this vehicle. This lack of mass and content did not
provide any opportunities for mass reduction.
Driveshaft Subsystem: This subsystem carries a mass of 14.3 kg. Mass reduction in this
system was achieved by changing the front driveshaft material from steel to aluminum.
This change provided a sub system mass reduction of 2.10 kg (14.6%), with a cost saving
of $3.38, at $1.61 per kg.
This vehicle was equipped with two driveshafts: one rear and one forward. The rear
driveshaft was manufactured of aluminum, which was the only mass reduction idea
generated. The front driveshaft was manufactured of steel. The use of aluminum requires
more aluminum to maintain the torsional strength, which may only be accomplished by
increasing the diameter. The need to maintain the packaging envelope was the main
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 227
reason aluminum was not selected for the front driveshaft, although providing more
packaging space might enable the material's use in the future.
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem, Beam Rear Axle Assembly; This subsystem
carries the bulk of the mass for the Driveline System, 89.07 kg. The mass reduction ideas
provided a subsystem mass reduction of 10.5 kg (11.8%), with a cost saving of $25.78,
equating to $2.46 per kg.
Approximately two-thirds of this subsystem mass is contained in the rear beam axle
assembly sub-subsystem (66.6 kg).
Using the proprietary VARI-LITE® tube process of U.S. Manufacturing from Warren,
Michigan, a mass saving of approximately 20% per axle housing was attained. This is an
extrusion process that strategically thins the axle tubing without sacrificing any structural
integrity. This process is in production today and is used by the Ford Motor Company on
the F-Series pickup truck axle housing.
The same technology can be applied to the axle shaft, yielding an approximate 25% mass
savings per axle assembly.
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem, Rear Drive Unit; The Schaeffler Group from
Troy, Michigan, has developed a new design for the differential gearing configuration
that uses lower density materials, innovative shapes, and assembly creations. The new
design is currently undergoing testing for rear-wheel drive (RWD) vehicle applications.
The concept and design was originally developed for front- wheel drive (FWD)
applications. As the FWD market grew and vehicles became smaller, there was an
opportunity to create a FWD differential assembly. One of the design criteria was to
make the new differential more compact in design to accommodate the smaller packaging
requirements vehicle OEMs were designing. This idea is expected to remove a minimum
of 2.5 kg of mass from the vehicle.
Front-Drive Housed Axle Subsystem; This subsystem is able to accommodate the same
differential modification as the rear drive unit. The design from Schaeffler is a little bit
lighter due to the application, but very similar.
The Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem can also remove some additional mass through
utilization of the U.S. Manufacturing VARI-LITE tube process for the manufacturing
process in making the front differential output shaft.
The lighter differential assembly allowed a slight reduction in the strength of the brackets
by changing the front differential mounting brackets material from forged steel to forged
aluminum. Forged aluminum was selected as the new material.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 228
Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem; The Front Drive Half Shaft Subsystem mass
reduction was reduced by again employing the VARI-LITE tube process. This change
created a mass reduction of just over 1.00 kg.
This process change is already in production for rear axle shafts and FWD axle shafts and
is no different than the rear axle shaft application.
3.2.8 Brake System Overview
This following section identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Brake System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the
baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Not including secondary mass savings, the
Brake system mass was reduced by 43.9 kg (43.4%). This increased the cost by $171.89,
or $3.92 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by 1.79%.
With secondary mass savings, the additional mass savings was 2.58 kg for a total system
mass reduction of 46.5 kg (1.87% curb weight reduction). The increase in costs was
reduced by $18.95 due to secondary mass savings resulting in a total system cost of
$152.94 or $3.29 per kg.
Table 3.2-8 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The table does not include secondary mass savings and associated
cost benefits. The additional benefits of secondary mass savings are included in the
detailed Brake System review (Section 4.8).
Table 3.2-8: Brake System Mass Production Summary
CO
(D
Mi
06
06
06
06
06
CO
cr
W)
•-=:
S-
3
"6d"
03
04
05
06
07
CO
:=
CO
c
cr
(n
3
"do"
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Brake System
Front Rotor- Dru" and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Sucsystem
Brake Actuation S LI: system
Power Bra ;e Su:syste" [for Hydraulic)
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (D
22.0
16.3
1.45
2.53
1.58
43.9
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;•;-
1.06
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.96
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
23.1
17.2
1.45
2.53
1.58
45.8
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
-$56.20
-$71.02
415.56
40.46
424.64
-$167.87
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"S" <2;
$10.84
$8.11
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$18.95
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
445.35
462.91
415.56
40.46
424.64
-$148.92
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"Vkg"
41.97
43.66
410.72
40.18
415.57
-$3.25
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.94%
0.70%
0.06%
0.10%
0.06%
1.87%
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 229
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Front Rotor/Drum
and Shield subsystem are the front rotor, caliper housing, and caliper mounting bracket.
Front Rotor: The mass reduction idea for the Front Rotor involved making several
different changes to the baseline design. The changes include normalizing to the 2006
Dodge Ram two-piece rotor design, changing disc material from steel to an aluminum
metal matrix material, change cooling vanes from a straight to directional configuration,
and strategically adding cross-drilled holes to the rotor disc. The individual baseline
component mass was 11.66 kg while the redesign mass was 5.60 kg, resulting in an
overall mass savings of 12.11 kg (48.0%) compared to the steel units.
Each of these individual rotor ideas is not unique; however, it is unique to see all of them
incorporated into a single design. This redesigned rotor incorporates all the latest rotor
lightweighting ideas into a single unit that captures all the potential weight saving
opportunities.
Caliper Housing: The mass reduction ideas for the caliper housing were to normalize to
the 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 and then change the component material from cast
iron to cast magnesium. The individual baseline component mass was 4.80 kg and the
redesign mass 1.60 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 6.41 kg (66.7%) compared
to the steel units.
For the caliper housing, as well as several other brake components, magnesium was the
redesign material of choice. While this is not popular within the United States automotive
industry, it is much more common with the European OEMs.
Magnesium has long been used in commercial and specialty automotive vehicles. Racing
cars have used magnesium parts since the 1920s. Volkswagen used approximately 20.0
kg of magnesium in its 1936 Beetle powertrain system.
Over the past 10 years, there has been significant growth in the high-pressure die-casting
sector as OEMs have been searching for light-weighting opportunities. With advances in
the creation of magnesium alloys, there are many applications for the automotive industry
particularly within the brake and suspension systems.
In Europe, Volkswagen, Chrysler, BMW, Ford, and Jaguar are using magnesium as a
structural lightweight material. Presently, around 14.0 kg of magnesium is used in the
Volkswagen Passat and the Audi A4 and A6 for transmission castings. Other applications
include instrument panels, intake manifolds, cylinder head covers, inner boot lid sections,
and steering components. In North America, the GMC full-sized Savana and Chevrolet
Express vans use up to 26.0 kg of magnesium alloy.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 230
Caliper Mounting Bracket: The mass reduction ideas for the caliper mounting bracket
are to first normalize to the 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche 1500 and then change the
component material from cast iron to cast magnesium. The individual baseline
component mass was 2.18 kg and the redesign mass was 0.69 kg, resulting in an overall
mass savings of 2.98 kg (68.3%) for the two brackets compared to the steel units.
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Rear Rotor/Drum
and Shield Subsystem are the rear drum, backing plate, and the wheel cylinder housing.
Rear Drum: The mass reduction idea for the rear drum is a combination of two different
changes to the baseline design. These changes include changing the baseline material
from cast iron to aluminum metal matrix composite and adding cooling fins on the
external surface. The individual baseline component mass was 11.1 kg with the redesign
mass 4.2 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 13.69 kg (64.1%) for the two drums
compared to the baseline units.
Backing Plate: The mass reduction idea for the backing plate involved changing the
baseline material from steel to cast aluminum. The individual baseline component mass
was 2.9 kg, while the redesign mass was 2.19 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of
1.41 kg (24.3%) for both backing plates compared to the steel units.
Wheel Cylinder Housing: The mass reduction idea for the wheel cylinder housing was
to change the baseline material from cast iron to cast aluminum. The individual baseline
component mass was 0.46 kg, while the redesign mass was 0.23 kg, an overall mass
savings of 0.46 kg (50.0%) for both cylinder housings compared to the cast iron units.
The major component contributing to the mass reduction within the Parking Brake and
Actuation Subsystem was the park brake lever and frame.
Park Brake Lever and Frame: The mass reduction idea for the park brake lever and
frame is to change the parking brake mounting frame, cover plate, and lever from
stamped steel to cast magnesium. The baseline mass for all three components was 1.61 kg
and the redesign mass was 0.68 kg, providing an overall mass savings of 0.93 kg (57.8%)
compared to the stamped steel units.
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Brake Actuation
Subsystem were the brake pedal arm, brake pedal frame, and brake pedal bracket.
Brake Pedal Arm: The mass reduction idea for the brake pedal arm is to change the
baseline component material from stamped steel to glass filled nylon. The total baseline
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 231
mass was 1.5 kg while the redesign mass was 0.75 kg, resulting in an overall mass
savings of 0.75 kg (50.0%) compared to the steel unit.
Brake Pedal Frame: The mass reduction idea for the brake pedal frame is to change it
from a multi-piece stamped steel welded construction to a cast magnesium design. The
baseline mass was 1.7 kg with the redesign mass 0.72 kg, resulting in an overall mass
savings of 0.98 kg (57.6%).
Brake Pedal Bracket Assembly: The mass reduction idea for the brake pedal bracket
assembly was to change the side plates, which are fabricated from stamped steel, to cast
magnesium. The baseline assembly had a mass of 1.54 kg versus the redesigned assembly
mass of 0.98 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.56 kg (36.4%).
The major component contributing to the mass reduction within the Power Brake
Subsystem was the vacuum booster assembly.
Vacuum Booster Assembly: The mass reduction ideas for the vacuum booster assembly
affected each internal plate as well as the outer housings. These ideas included changing
the front housing, rear housing, front backing plate, and the spacer ring from stamped
steel to cast magnesium. The rear backing plate idea changed the baseline material from
stamped steel to stamped aluminum. The actuator shaft changed from steel to titanium
and the mounting studs from steel to aluminum. The baseline booster unit had a mass of
4.2 kg and the redesign mass was 2.7 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 1.5 kg
(35.7%) compared to the steel unit.
3.2.9 Exhaust System Overview
This following section identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Exhaust System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the
baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Not including secondary mass savings, the
exhaust system mass was reduced by 6.34 kg (16.52%). This increased the cost by
$19.54, or $3.08 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by
0.27%. With secondary mass savings, the additional mass savings was 0.605 kg for a
total system mass reduction of 6.95 kg (0.29% curb weight reduction). The increase in
costs were reduced by $5.85 due to secondary mass savings resulting in a total system
cost increase of $13.69 or $1.97 per kg.
Table 3.2-9 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The table does not include secondary mass savings and associated
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 232
cost benefits. The additional benefits of secondary mass savings are included in the
detailed Exhaust System review (Section 4.9).
Table 3.2-9: Exhaust System Mass Reduction Summary
O)
fO
09
09
Subsystem
'00
11
Sub-Subsystem
00
o'o
Description
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
6.34
6.34
t Decrease;;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
0.605
0.605
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
6.95
6.95
(Decrease;
Cost
Impact
New Tech
419.54
-$19.54
ijn crease*.
Cost
Impact
Comp
$5.85
$5.85
(Decrease*!
Cost
Impact
Total
413.69
-$13.69
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
41.97
.$1.97
(.Increase!
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.29%
0.29%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" - cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the exhaust system were
the muffler and the down pipe.
Cross Over Pipe Assembly: The mass reduction idea for the cross over pipe is to change
the component material from 409 stainless steel with a wall thickness of 1.9 mm to 304
stainless steel and a wall thickness of 1.2 mm. The individual baseline component mass
was 4.23 kg, with the redesign mass at 2.77 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of
1.46 kg (34.5%).
Most common in today's OEM stainless systems, 409 stainless steel can be replaced with
304 stainless steel. The 304 stainless steel allows for a thinner wall thickness, thereby
reducing weight. It is, however, more costly than the 409 stainless steel.
Expansion Clamp Assembly: The mass reduction ideas for the expansion clamp
assembly involved changing the down pipe component material from 409 stainless steel
with a wall thickness of 1.9 mm to a 304 stainless steel and a wall thickness of 1.2 mm.
The individual baseline component mass was 2.13 kg, while the redesign mass was 1.66
kg resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.47 kg (22%).
Also in this subsystem was the change from the solid steel hanger brackets to hollow 304
stainless steel. The individual baseline component mass was 0.39 kg, while the redesign
mass was 0.27 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.12 kg (31%). The hangers
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 233
were changed from the EDPM factory hangers to SGF fiber reinforced hangers. The
individual baseline component mass was 0.16 kg, with the redesign mass 0.05 kg, which
resulted in an overall mass savings of 0.11 kg (71%).
Replacing 409 stainless steel with 304 stainless is widely common in high-performance
cars. Hollow hangers are used in OEM vehicles today, while SGF® fiber reinforced
hangers are widely used in Europe on factory vehicles today. The subsystem's baseline
component mass was 3.80 kg with the redesign mass 3.09 kg, resulting in an overall mass
savings of 0.71kg (18%).
Muffler Assembly: The mass reduction ideas for the muffler assembly were to change
the muffler skin, end plates and muffler pipe component material from aluminized steel
with a wall thickness of 1.4mm to a 304 stainless steel and a wall thickness of 1 mm The
individual baseline component mass is 11.29 kg and the redesign mass is 7.81 kg
resulting in an overall mass savings of 3.48 kg or 30%.
Also in this subsystem is the change from the solid steel hanger brackets to hollow 304
stainless steel hanger brackets. The individual baseline component mass was 1.14 kg,
with the redesign mass 0.71 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.35 kg (31%).
The hangers were changed from the EDPM factory hangers to SGF fiber reinforced
hangers. The individual baseline component mass is 0.477 kg and the redesign mass is
0.13 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.34 kg (71%).
Using 304 stainless steel to replace 409 stainless steel is widely used in high performance
cars. As in the expansion clamp assembly, hollow hangers are used in OEM vehicles
today, while SGF fiber reinforced hangers are widely used in Europe. The subsystem's
baseline component mass was 19.03 kg and the redesign mass was 14.86 kg, resulting in
an overall mass savings of 4.16 kg (22%).
3.2.10 Fuel System Overview
This following section identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Fuel System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the
baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Not including secondary mass savings, the
fuel system mass was reduced by 1.61 kg (6.10%). This decreased the cost by $3.25, or
$2.02 per kg. Mass reduction for this system reduced vehicle curb weight by .07%. With
secondary mass savings, the additional mass savings was 5.73 kg for a total system mass
reduction of 7.34 kg (0.30% curb weight reduction). The decrease in costs was reduced
by $8.67 due to secondary mass savings resulting in a total system cost decrease of
$11.92, or $1.62 per kg.
Table 3.2-10 provides a summary of mass reduction and cost impact for select sub-
subsystems evaluated. The table does not include secondary mass savings and associated
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 234
cost benefits. The additional benefits of secondary mass savings are included in the
detailed Fuel System review (Section 4.10).
Table 3.2-10: Fuel System Mass Reduction Summary
CO
l-=
a
ro
10
'id'
10
Subsystem
00
.........
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
"do'
00
Description
Fuel System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" [•;
'oil
0.876
1.61
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"
5"73"u
0.00
5.73
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"k9" c;
6"46
0.88
7.34
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
T'<2)
$2.'36
$0.89
$3.25
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
J8"."67
$0.00
$8.67
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
T'(2)
j"i'i"03
$0.89
$11.92
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
i'i"."7i
$1.02
$1.62
(C'ecrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
u"'26%
0.04%
0.30%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease,"-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the fuel system are the
vapor canister support on the frame and the fuel line bracket.
Vapor Canister Support on the Frame: The mass reduction idea for the vapor canister
support on the frame, which is part of the vapor canister subsystem, was to remove the
large steel mounting bracket and mounting hardware from the frame, change the bracket
material to plastic PP (poly propylene), and mount it to the tank. The vapor canister then
mounts to the new plastic mounting bracket by sliding into place. This eliminates the
mounting hardware. The individual baseline component mass was 0.71 kg, while the
redesign mass was 0.069 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.64 kg (90%).
This vapor canister mounting style has been used on other GM vehicles, including the
Chevrolet Malibu.
Fuel Line Bracket: The mass reduction idea for the fuel line bracket that is part of the
fuel distribution subsystem was to change the bracket material from steel to plastic PA66
(high-quality poly nylon resin). The individual baseline component mass was 0.21 kg
with the redesign mass 0.05 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.16 kg (74%).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 235
This bracket was not subjected to significant loading (see white paper report). The
redesigned plastic bracket with added reinforced ribs will be acceptable for this
application.
3.2.11 Steering System Overview
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Steering
System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the baseline
vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Table 3.2-11 is a summary of the calculated mass
reduction and cost impact for each sub-subsystem evaluated. This analysis recorded a
system mass reduction of 8.46 kg (26.0%) at a cost increase of $147.46 ($17.44 per kg).
The contribution of the steering system to the overall vehicle mass reduction is 0.34%.
There are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
Table 3.2-11: Steering System Mass Reduction Summary
CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" {1}
-1.47
5.44
1.01
3.47
8.46
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
T'(2)
-$247.24
$40.69
$54.32
$4.76
-$147.46
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" <2>
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" {2}
-$247.24
$40.69
$54.32
$4.76
-$147.46
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$168.57
$7.48
$53.73
$1.37
-$17.44
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
-0.06%
0.22%
0.04%
0.14%
0.34%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2( "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Steering Subsystem
are the oil pump, steering equipment, and steering column.
Steering Gear: The industry trend is to use electric assist in most vehicles and trucks
with few exceptions. The individual baseline component mass was 13.9 kg and the
redesign mass was 15.4 kg, resulting in an overall mass increase of 1.47 kg (0.06%)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 236
compared to the hydraulic unit. Using the electric steering facilitates weight reduction in
other areas of the system that will be discussed.
Electric power steering (EPS) is more efficient than the hydraulic power steering, since
the electric power steering motor only needs to provide assistance when the steering
wheel is turned, whereas the hydraulic pump must run constantly. The amount of
assistance in EPS is easily tunable to the vehicle type, road speed, and even driver
preference. Electrical assistance is not lost when the engine fails or stalls, whereas
hydraulic assistance stops working if the engine stops, increasing steering effort as the
driver must now turn not only the very heavy steering — without any help — but also the
power-assistance system itself.
Power Steering Pump: The mass reduction idea for the steering pump was to eliminate
it completely. The individual baseline component mass was 5.44 kg and the eliminating
the unit resulted in an overall mass savings of 5.44 kg , or 100% compared to the
hydraulic units.
Selecting an EPS is the latest technology, which is used in a variety of current production
vehicles.
Power Steering Tube Assembly: The mass reduction idea for the power steering tube
assemblies was to eliminate them completely. The individual baseline component mass
was 0.65 kg and eliminating the components resulted in an overall mass savings of 0.65
kg, or 100% compared to the steel and rubber tubes.
Heat Exchanger Assembly: The mass reduction idea for the heat exchanger was to
eliminate it completely. The individual baseline component mass was 0.36 kg and
eliminating the components resulted in an overall mass savings of 0.36 kg for the entire
system (100%).
Steering Column: The mass reduction idea for the steering column is to change the base
component material from steel to magnesium. The individual baseline component mass is
10.2 kg and the redesign mass is 13.4 kg resulting in an overall mass savings of 3.25 kg
for the column or 32% compared to the steel units.
The 2009 Ford F-150 steering column was more than 60% magnesium based on volume,
and represents a greater than 40% weight savings over the prior model steering column.
The weight saved was realized through the integration of several components, such as the
steel main tube and several brackets that were previously welded together, as well as
aluminum support castings that were bolted on, which were integrated into a single
magnesium die casting. Utilizing die-cast magnesium also facilitated the integration of
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 237
optional construction for the engineered steering column energy absorption features. This
allowed Ford and Delphi Steering engineers to optimize the steering column's
contribution to driver-side vehicle crash safety.
3.2.12 Climate Control System Overview
This report details FEV's analysis and results relative to the Climate Control System to
identify design concepts, cost effectiveness, and manufacturing feasibility that can meet
the function and performance of the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Table
3.2-12 is a summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each sub-
subsystem evaluated.
The Climate Control Subsystem contributed a system mass reduction of 1.94 kg, (9.55%).
This mass reduction provided a vehicle cost saving of $14.71, which equated to $7.59 per
kg. The overall vehicle mass reduction contribution is 0.08%. Table 3.2-12 is a summary
of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each vehicle subsystem evaluated.
There are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
Table 3.2-12: Climate Control System Mass Reduction Summary
CO
•-=:
5
a
3
12
12
12
12
"12"
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
"do"
Description
Climate Control System
Air Handling Body Ventilation 3u:syste —
Heating / Defrosting Subsystem
Refrigeration • Air Conditioning Sucsvste™
Controls Sucsyste~
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 238
mass reduction in both of these materials was achieved through a change in the density of
the material by Mucell of 10% to 30%. Azote replaced high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) in most applications. The density of regular HDPE is 0.95 g/cm3. Depending on
the grade, high-density HDPE Azote can have a density between 0.030 and 0.115 g/cm3.
One of the major advantages of using Mucell is the cycle time gain of 20% to 30% per
machine depending on base material. The use of material with a lower density may also
transfer to the use of lower tonnage machines for manufacturing, which could become a
major competitive cost variable.
Within many of the Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem components there was a
need for strength and stiffness due to the fact these components were used as the
mounting face for other under-dash products. These applications must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis to understand if Mucell is appropriate. The Azote product has
extremely limited mechanical properties and, therefore, cannot be used for applications
where mechanical properties are required.
3.2.13 Info, Gage, and Warning Device Systems Overview
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the
Information, Gage, and Warning Device System with the intent to meet the function and
performance requirements of the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). In Table
3.2-13 is a summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each sub-
subsystem evaluated. This project recorded a system mass reduction of 0.248 kg
(15.72%) at a cost decrease of $0.66 ($2.66 per kg). Furthermore, the contribution of the
Information, Gage, and Warning Device System to the overall vehicle mass reduction is
0.01%. There are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 239
Table 3.2-13: Information, Gage, and Warning Device System Mass Reduction Summary
00
•-=:
(D
3
"13
13
13
Subsystem
00
"01
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
"(10
00
Description
Info, Gage and Warning system
Driver Information Module flnstrument Cluster)
Traffic Horns (Electric)
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ;•;.
d."o6
0.18
0.25
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" [ij
bTdb
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" in
b"b'6
0.18
0.25
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$b"49
$0.17
$0.66
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$b.'bb
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
$0.49
$0.17
$0.66
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"Wkg"
$7.67
$0.93
$2.66
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
b"db%
0.01%
0.01%
(1) "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The mass reduction for this system was to change the horn covers from metal to plastic.
The mass was reduced 16% but overall contribution level to vehicle reduction was
limited. Please reference internal Info, Gage, and Warning Device Systems section for
details.
3.2.14 Electrical Power Supply System Overview
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Electrical
Power Supply System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements
of the baseline vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Table 3.2-14 is a summary of the
calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each sub-subsystem evaluated. This project
recorded a system mass reduction of 12.81 kg (60.6%) at a cost increase of $172.73, or
$13.49 per kg. The contribution of the Electrical Power Supply System to the overall
vehicle mass reduction is 0.52%. There are no compounding mass reductions for this
system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 240
Table 3.2-14: Electrical Power Supply System Mass Reduction Summary
fD
3
14
14
CO
CD
3
00
01
CO
5~
cr
1
00
00
Description
Electrical Power Supply System
Service Battery Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" r;.
12.81
12.81
(Decrease;
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (1)
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"(1)
12.81
12.81
(Decrease:
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2>
-$172.73
-$172.73
(Increase;
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$"(2)
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$172.73
-$172.73
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
-$13.49
-$13.49
(Increase)
Vehicle
Reduction
Total
0.52%
0.52%
(1) "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Electrical Power
Supply System are the battery, battery tray, and auxiliary battery tray.
Battery: The mass reduction idea for the battery is to change the traditional lead acid
battery to a lithium ion battery. The individual baseline component mass is 17.7 kg and
the redesign mass is 5.90 kg resulting in an overall mass savings of 11.8 kg (66%).
The replacement of the lead acid battery with a lithium ion battery is occurring mostly in
the recreational vehicle and motorcycle markets today, and the use of this technology is
now crossing over into the passenger vehicle market.
Battery Tray: The mass reduction idea for the battery tray is to change the base bracket
material from steel to PP-GF30 (poly propylene with 30% glass-filled). The individual
baseline component mass was 1.94 kg, while the redesign mass was 1.28 kg, resulting in
an overall mass savings of 0.66 kg (34%).
This type of battery tray has been used on other vehicles, such as the Ford F-150.
Auxiliary Battery Tray: The mass reduction idea for the battery tray is to change the
base bracket material from steel to PP-GF30 (poly propylene with 30% glass filled). The
individual baseline component mass was 0.98 kg, while the redesign mass was 0.64 kg,
resulting in an overall mass savings of 0.33 kg (34%).
This type of battery tray has been used on other vehicles, again, such as the Ford F-150.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 241
i.2.15 Lighting System Overview
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Lighting
System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the baseline
vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado). Table 3.2-15 is a summary of the calculated mass
reduction and cost impact for each sub-subsystem evaluated. This project recorded a
system mass reduction of 0.39 kg (4%) with a cost increase of $2.00, or $5.18 per kg.
The contribution of the Lighting System to the overall vehicle mass reduction was 0.02%.
There are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
Table 3.2-15: Lighting System Mass Reduction Summary
u>
•-=:
¥L
nj
3
"l7
17
17
17
17
17
CO
D~
«
*<
2.
3
00
01
02
03
04
05
01
c
tr
Cfl
c
cr
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 242
Table 3.2-16: Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System Mass Reduction Summary
ui
•-=:
a
3
..„..„..
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
en
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
en
cr
cn
U]
3
"do
01
02
03
04
U 0
lit
07
08
Description
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring
iistrir-'-iit Panel Harness
Body and Rear Enrl 'A'liincj
Trailer Tow Wiring
Battery Cables
Load UG--: a Ft™ 9. nt Fuse Box • Passive
Interior i, uoiiscle wiring
Frt & Reai door harness
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" r>
1.50
1.70
0.954
1.42
0.503
0.274
0.667
1.45
8.47
'Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" a,
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" [-)
1.50
1.70
0.954
1.42
0.503
0.274
0.667
1.45
8.47
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$15.34
$15.91
59.37
$13.91
56.94
-50.80
50.77
50.00
$61.44
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"5" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
» (2)
$15.34
$15.91
59.37
$13.91
56.94
-50.80
50.77
10.00
$61.44
(Decrease)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
510.25
$9.34
$9.82
$9.82
$13.79
-52.92
$1.15
$0.00
$7.26
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"
0.06%
0.07%
0.04%
0.06%
0.02%
0.01%
0.03%
0.06%
0.35%
(1) "•»-" = mass decrease,"-" = mass increase
(2) "•»-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Electrical
Distribution and Electronic Control System were the instrument panel harness and under
frame/tow harness.
Instrument Panel Harness: The mass reduction idea for the instrument panel harness
was to change the base copper wire material to aluminum wire and the wire sheathing
from PVC (polyvinyl chloride) to PPO (polyphenylene oxide) material. The individual
baseline component mass was 5.24 kg. The redesign mass was 3.82 kg, which produced
an overall mass savings of 1.41 kg (48%).
Aluminum wire and PPO sheathing are currently being tested in vehicles on road by
Lear® Corporation. Sumitomo® Corporation has developed an aluminum wire harness
that is used in the 2010 Toyota Ractis and in the 2011 Toyota Yaris.
Under Frame/Tow Harness: The mass reduction idea for the under frame/tow harness
was to change the base copper wire material to aluminum wire and change the wire
sheathing from PVC to PPO material. The individual baseline component mass was 5.22
kg. The redesign mass was 3.81 kg, which resulted in an overall mass savings of 1.41 kg,
or 48%.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 243
Similar to the instrument panel harness, aluminum wire and PPO sheathing is also being
road tested by Lear for this harness. Likewise, Sumitomo has an aluminum wire harness
used in the 2010 Toyota Ractis and the 2011 Toyota Yaris.
3.2.17 Body and Frame Systems Overview
This report details EDAG's work and findings relative to the Body Group -A- and Frame
& Mounting Systems to prove the design concept, cost effectiveness, and manufacturing
feasibility that can meet the function and performance of the baseline vehicle (2011
Chevrolet Silverado). Table 3.2-17 is a summary of the calculated mass reduction and
cost impact for each sub-subsystem evaluated. This project recorded a combined system
mass reduction of 27.6% (230.1 kg system mass reduction) at a cost increase of $5.43 per
kg ($1,250.12 increase). Furthermore, the contribution of both systems to the overall
vehicle mass reduction is 9.6%.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 244
Table 3.2-17: Body Group -A- System / Frame & Mounting System Mass Reduction Summary
en
*<
2-
nT
3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
Subsystem
00
01
01
02
02
02
02
02
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
19
19
19
26
26
26
00
01
01
01
01
01
03
03
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
01
00
01
02
12
13
00
01
01
02
03
03
04
04
00
01
02
00
01
02
00
00
01
01
01
03
00
02
00
01
Description
Body System Group -A-
Body Structure Subsystem
Cabin
Front End Subsystem
Radiator Asm
Radiator Support
Tow Hooks
Hood Hinges
Body Closure Subsystem
Panel Fender Outer LH
Panel Fender Outer RH
Hood
Door Asm, Front LH
Door Asm, Front RH
Door Asm, Rear LH
Door Asm, Rear RH
Bumpers Subsystem
Bumper Front
Bumper Rear
Cargo Box Subsystem
Cargo Box
Tailgate
Frame & Mounting System
Frame Subsystem
Front Cross Member
Trans Cross Member
Other Components...
Body Isolators
Engine Transmission Mounting Subsystem
Transmission Mount
Towing and Coupling Attachments Subsystem
Towing Provisions
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Base
Mass
"kg"
567.40
207.20
207.20
31.00
12.90
12.10
2.25
3.75
153.70
14.90
14.00
22.70
29.00
28.90
22.00
22.20
48.40
28.50
19.90
127.10
108.30
18.80
267.64
252.27
4.90
4.90
232.20
10.27
2.14
2.14
13.23
13.23
835.04
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
206.40
75.40
75.40
11.60
5.70
5.90
0.00
0.00
60.00
7.50
7.00
11.00
10.20
10.10
7.00
7.20
16.40
9.90
6.50
43.00
34.40
8.60
23.70
23.70
1.60
1.60
20.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
230.10
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
NIDMC
"$" (2)
-1195.70
-506.61
-506.61
-62.92
-10.36
-52.56
0.00
0.00
-288.90
-19.34
-18.21
-35.19
-58.99
-58.73
-49.31
-49.14
-69.71
-23.68
-46.03
-267.56
-241.46
-26.10
-54.42
-54.42
-3.67
-3.67
-47.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-1,250.12
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
"$/kg" (2)
-5.79
-6.72
-6.72
-5.42
-1.82
-8.91
0.00
0.00
^1.82
-2.58
-2.60
-3.20
-5.78
-5.81
-7.04
-6.83
^1.25
-2.39
-7.08
-6.22
-7.02
-3.03
-2.30
-2.30
-2.30
-2.30
-2.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5.43
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
"%"
36.38%
36.39%
36.4%
37.42%
44.2%
48.8%
0.0%
0.0%
39.04%
50.3%
50.0%
48.5%
35.2%
34.9%
31.8%
32.4%
33.88%
34.7%
32.7%
33.83%
31.8%
45.7%
8.86%
9.39%
32.7%
32.7%
8.8%
0.0%
0.00%
0.0%
0.00%
0.0%
27.56%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
8.65%
3.16%
3.16%
0.49%
0.24%
0.25%
0.00%
0.00%
2.51%
0.31%
0.29%
0.46%
0.43%
0.42%
0.29%
0.30%
0.69%
0.41%
0.27%
1.80%
1.44%
0.36%
0.99%
0.99%
0.07%
0.07%
0.86%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
9.64%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
NOTE: Only sub-subsystems with significant mass reduction are shown in detail. Total values (bold) at the system
and sub-system level include all sub-subsystem mass reduction
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Body Structure
Subsystem is the cabin.
Cabin: The mass reduction ideas for the optimized cabin were to stamp, rivet, and bond
aluminum sheet (5 series) and gauge size structures with castings at some of the highly
loaded interfaces. The cabin baseline mass was 207 kg and the redesign mass was 132 kg.
This resulted in an overall mass savings of 75 kg (36%).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 245
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Front End
Subsystem are the radiator assembly and radiator support.
Radiator Assembly: The mass reduction idea for the radiator assembly was to change
the base component material from steel to aluminum. The baseline mass was 12.9 kg and
the redesign mass was 7.2 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 5.7 kg (44%).
Radiator Support: The mass reduction idea for the radiator support was to change the
base component material from steel to aluminum. The baseline mass was 12.1 kg and the
redesign mass was 6.2 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 5.9 kg (49%).
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Body Closure
Subsystem are the panel fenders, hood, and door assemblies.
Outer Panel Fender, LH and RH: The mass reduction idea for the redesigned panel
fender was to stamp it out of aluminum optimized for grade and gauge size. The panel
fenders baseline mass totaled 28.9 kg while the redesign mass totaled 14.4 kg. This
resulted in an overall mass savings of 14.5 kg (50%).
Hood: The mass reduction idea for the redesigned hood was to stamp it out of aluminum
optimized for grade (6022) and gauge sizes. The baseline hood mass totaled 22.7 kg
while the redesign mass is 11.7 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings of 11 kg (48%).
Door Assembly, Front LH and RH: The mass reduction ideas for the redesigned front
doors were to stamp them from aluminum sheet optimized for grade (6022) and gauge
sizes. The front doors baseline mass totals 58 kg while the redesign mass totals 38 kg,
resulting in an overall mass savings of 20 kg, or 35%.
DoorAssembly, Rear LH and RH: The mass reduction ideas for the redesigned rear
doors were to stamp them out of aluminum sheet optimized for grade (6022) and gauge
sizes. The rear doors baseline mass totals 44 kg, while the redesign mass totals 30 kg
resulting in an overall mass savings of 14 kg, or 32%.
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Bumper Subsystem
are the front and rear bumpers.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 246
Front Bumper: The mass reduction idea for the redesigned front bumper was to stamp it
out of aluminum sheet optimized for grade (6022-T6) and gauge sizes. The baseline front
bumper mass was 29 kg. The redesign mass was 19 kg resulting in an overall mass
savings of 10 kg, or 35%.
Rear Bumper: The mass reduction idea for the redesigned rear bumper was to stamp it
out of aluminum sheet optimized for grade (6013-T6) and gauge sizes. The baseline rear
bumper mass was 20 kg while the redesign mass was 13 kg, resulting in an overall mass
savings of 7 kg (35%).
The major components contributing to the mass reduction within the Cargo Box
Subsystem is the cargo box assembly and the tailgate.
Cargo Box: The mass reduction idea for the optimized cargo box was to stamp the panels
out of aluminum grade sheet optimized for grade (5 series) and gauge sizes. The cargo
box baseline mass was 108 kg and the redesign mass was 74 kg, resulting in an overall
mass savings of 34 kg (31%).
Tailgate: The mass reduction ideas for the redesigned tailgate was to stamp it from
aluminum sheet optimized for grade (6022) and gauge sizes. The tailgate baseline mass
totaled 19 kg while the redesign mass totaled 10 kg, resulting in an overall mass savings
of 9 kg (46%).
The major component contributing to the mass reduction within the Frame Subsystem
for the Frame and Mounting System is the frame assembly.
Frame Assembly: The mass reduction ideas for the redesigned frame assembly made use
of tailor rolled blanks which utilized an optimized high-strength and advanced high-
strength steel. The two front cross-over members utilized an aluminum sheet optimized
for grade (6082) and gauge size. The frame assembly baseline mass totaled 242 kg, while
the redesign mass totaled 218 kg. This resulted in an overall mass savings of 24 kg
(10%).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 247
4. Mass Reduction and Cost Analysis - Vehicle Systems White Papers
4.1 Engine System
The Chevrolet Silverado selected as the subject of this study came equipped with a 5.3
Liter V8 producing 315 horse power and 335 ft.-lbs of torque. Designated by Chevrolet
as its LC9 variant, this engine features cylinder deactivation and is flex-fuel compatible.
Other features include aluminum deep skirt, closed deck block with cast-in liners and 6
bolt mains. The cam-in-block pushrod design has been outfitted with a phaser enabling
variable valve timing. This naturally aspirated, port-injected layout utilizes a single
runner intake manifold. All-aluminum construction and plastic intake manifold are
lightweight features already implemented by GM.
Shared applications include the Chevrolet Avalanche, Chevrolet Suburban, GMC Sierra,
and GMC Yukon XL. Base construction of the engine was launched in 2005 as the
fourth-generation small block produced by General Motors.[25]
Simultaneous with this study was the technical release of the new fifth-generation
General Motors small block engine. Well-publicized technological improvements
included direct injection, new combustion system, and variable displacement oil pump.
Mass-reducing features include tapered connecting rods (pin end), core drilled crankshaft
journals (mains and rods), and direct mount ignition coils. These features do not offer
mass reduction beyond what has been investigated in this study. As shown in the
following sections, these same ideas were implemented and integrated with other
technologies for additional mass savings.
25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Vortect_engine
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 248
Image 4.1-1: Silverado Base Engine (5.3Liter LC9)
(Source: http://www.gmpowertrain.ca/product.html)
The Base Engine System comprised 9.78% of the total Silverado vehicle mass. This
system was divided into various subsystems as shown in Table 4.1-1. Significant mass
contributors to the Engine System include the Cylinder Block, Crank Drive, and Cylinder
Head Subsystems.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 249
Table 4.1-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Engine System
03
"-C
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 250
Engine System Material
Analysis
• • 1 ^-H
• 2. H.5.5ted
40.9%
0.0%
43.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
5.8%
0.0%
8.1%
100%
98.211
0.000
105.330
0.000
0.000
3.126
13.892
0.000
19.385
239.945
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
TOTAL
Figure 4.1-1: Baseline Material Breakdown for Engine System
Table 4.1-2 summarizes mass and cost savings by subsystem. The systems largest
savings were realized in the Exhaust Subsystem. Significant mass savings were also
found in the Cooling, Cylinder Block, and Lubrication Subsystems. Detailed system
analysis resulted in 23.8 kg saved at a cost of $114.63, resulting in a $4.82 per kg cost
increase. The driver for cost increase came from the Cooling Subsystem featuring an
electric water pump.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 251
Table 4.1-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System
en
•-<
HI
a
3
01
01
01
01
01
of
01
..........
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
of
01
01
Subsystem
00
02
03
04
05
06
"07"
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
"17
60
70
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
bo"
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
bo"
00
00
Description
Engine System
Engine Frames- Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Drive Subsystem
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Air Intake Subsystem
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Cooling Subsystem
Induction Air Charging Subsystem
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breather Subsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic.
Electrical Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor.
Generator, etc.)
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
B
A
A
A
A
X
A
B
A
D
X
A
B
D
Mass
Reduction
"kg" {1}
1 103
2.376
0.000
3.298
1.161
0-192
0.415
1.732
0.941
0.000
3.148
3.009
3.314
0.000
0.000
bibb
0.886
2.229
23.805
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2}
-0.010
2.952
0.000
0.797
6,058
bls'b
-2.442
0.727
-0.542
0.000
-20.000
-11.242
-92.063
0.000
0.000
bibb
1.973
-0.892
-$114.63
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$0.01
$1.24
$0.00
$0.24
$5.22
$0.26
-$5.88
$0.42
-$0.58
$0.00
$0.00
-$3.74
-$27.78
sb.bo
$0.00
$b"bb
$2.23
-$0.40
-$4.82
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
18.18%
6.42%
0.00%
5.51%
4.66%
1.18%
23.72%
20.94%
7.88%
0.00%
25.88%
28.53%
13.63%
0.00%
0.00%
b"bb%
15.63%
11.20%
9.92%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.04%
0.10%
0.00%
0.13%
0.05%
b"bi"%
0.02%
0.07%
0.04%
0.00%
0.13%
0.12%
0.14%
0.00%
0.00%
b'."6b%
0.04%
0.09%
0.97%
(1} "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
{2} "V = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Research and development costs, warranty costs, and noise, vibration, and harshness
(NVH) were not captured in this analysis.
All of the engine components were reviewed for mass savings opportunities. No viable
opportunities were identified for the Fuel Induction, Exhaust Gas Re-circulation, and
Breather Subsystems. The Silverado engine had no counter balance or induction air
charging components; hence, no mass savings for these subsystems.
This analysis focused on lightweight solutions applied at a component level. The impact
of increasing power density through air induction and intelligent valve control have been
the subject of prior research and was not investigated for mass savings (downsizing)
opportunity in this study.
Downsizing the engine, permissible by reducing the vehicle curb weight, is covered in
Section 4.1.18, Secondary Mass Savings.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 252
4.1.1 Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
4.1.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen below in Table 4.1-3, the most significant contributor to the Engine Frames,
Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem mass are the Engine Mountings. This subsystem
comprises 2.5% of the engine mass.
Table 4.1-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
V)
I
(D
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
02
02
02
02
02
| Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
10
99
Description
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
Engine Frames
Engine Mountings
Hanging Eyes
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
'kg'
0.000
5.732
:.33^
:.:::
6.066
239.945
2454
2.53%
0.25%
4.1.1.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
As pictured in Image 4.1-2, the Silverado engine/transmission assembly is secured to the
vehicle chassis with three isolating mounts, one at either side of the cylinder block, and
one supporting the output end of the transmission.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 253
Image 4.1-2: Silverado Engine Mount Diagram
(Source: http://parts.nalleygmc.com)
The main structure of the Silverado engine mount (Image 4.1-3) is made up of three steel
stampings. The center stamping, over-molded with rubber, houses oil and a diaphragm
valve for improved NVH. The engine lift bracket (Image 4.1-3) is a stamped steel
weldment bolting to the rear of the engine.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
JuneS, 2015
Page 254
4.1.1.3
Image 4.1-3: Silverado Engine Mount and Engine Lift Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Engine mounts conventionally made from metal are now being manufactured from
plastic. Shown in Image 4.1-4 is a glass-filled polyamide engine mount designed for
specific model versions of Renault-Nissan small and compact cars, as well as electric
cars. Plastic in this application saves 25% over metal.
Image 4.1-4: Polyamide Engine Mount
(Source: http://www.zf.com)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 255
Polyamide torque dampeners are standard on current production Opel Astra/Insignia
models (Image 4.1-5).[26] BMW 5 Series GT now features a Polyamide rear powertrain
mount, saving 50% mass (Image 4.1-6).[27]
Image 4.1-5: (Left) Polyamide Torque Dampener
(Source: www.contitech.de)
Image 4.1-6: (Right) Polyamide Engine Mount
(Source: www.contitech.de)
Recently, Magnesium has found an application in engine mounts. Magnesium mounts
helped the 2013 Cadillac ATS (Image 4.1-7) become the lightest vehicle in the U.S.
segment.[28]
26 www.contitech.de/pages/produkte/schwingungstechnik/motorlagerang/motorlagerkomponenten_en.html
27 http://wot.motortrend.com/fat-winter-tires-to-plastic-six-surprises-from-continentals-techshow.html
28http://media.gm. co m/media/us/en/gm/press_kits.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/May/0510_ats.html
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 256
Image 4.1-7: Magnesium Engine Mount - 2013 Cadillac ATS
(Source: http://www.sae.org)
The 2015 F-150 is expected to launch with high-strength steel engine mounts, which will
save mass.
4.1.1.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.1-4 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Engine Frames, Mounting,
and Brackets Subsystem. Due to the existing mounting configuration, plastic was
considered not strong enough. Quantifying mass savings and cost impact for plastic in
this application would require complete redesign and engineering effort beyond the scope
of this study. Considering the towing capacity of a full-size truck, this high-load
application is not well-suited for plastic at this time. Aluminum or magnesium are a
possibility, but would require a larger packaging envelope and present a potential
packaging issue. Dual-phase 980 was considered as a high-strength replacement for mild
steel, but was eliminated based on forming limitations.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 257
Table 4.1-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Engine Frames, Mounting,
and Brackets Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Engine Mountings
Engine Mountings
Engine Mountings
Engine Mountings
Engine Mountings
Engine Mountings
Engine Mount Bracket
Engine Mount Bracket
Engine Lift Bracket
Engine Lift Bracket
Engine Lift Bracket
Mass-Reduction Idea
Scale down engine
mounts based on reduced
powertrain size for
reduced curb weight
Material change from
Steel to Nylon
Material change from
Steel to long fiber
compression molding
Material change from
Steel to Magnesium
Mild steel to DP600
Mild steel to DP980
Mild steel to DP600
Mild steel to DP980
Mild steel to DP600
Mild steel to DP980
Remove after assembly
Estimated Impact
7% mass reduction
40% mass
reduction
40% mass
reduction
25% mass
reduction
25% mass
reduction
40% mass
reduction
25% mass
reduction
40% mass
reduction
25% mass
reduction
40% mass
reduction
1 00% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Some components may cross other
product lines
Insufficient strength
Insufficient strength
Packaging concern
Formability challenges
Formability challenges
Formability challenges
Formability challenges
Formability challenges
Formability challenges
Serviceability
4.1.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.1-5 lists the mass reduction ideas applied to Engine Frames, Mounting, and
Brackets Subsystem.
Table 4.1-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
CO
*<
JO-
CD
3
01
01
01
01
01
| Subsystem
02
02
02
02
02
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
10
99
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
Engine Frames
Engine Mountings
Hanging Eyes
Misc.
N/A
Mild Steel to AHSS DP600
Remove after assembly
N/A
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
JuneS, 2015
Page 258
Image 4.1-8 shows the components that construct the engine mount. The stampings
boxed in blue were changed from mild steel to dual phase 600 high strength steel. High-
strength part thickness was calculated using the yield strength ratio between mild steel
and DP600 (i.e., 310MPa/400MPa = 0.78). High-strength steel's reduced ductility would
likely require redesign of the assembly.
The engine lift bracket (Image 4.1-9) is accessible for removal after engine installation. It
eliminates the mass of this component and fastener.
Image 4.1-8: Engine Mount Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-9: Engine Lift Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 259
4.1.1.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
As shown in Table 4.1-6, AHSS applied to the Silverado engine mounts saves mass and
cost. Removing the engine lift bracket following engine installation adds an operation to
engine assembly and therefore increases cost (see Hanging Eyes Sub-subsystem). Reuse
of the engine lift bracket could reduce cost, but this analysis assumes a new bracket is
used for each engine installation.
Table 4.1-6: Mass reduction and Cost Impact for Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
rj-j
i
CD
3
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
02
02
02
02
02
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Descriptor)
B
Idea
Level
Select
Engine Frames, Mounting, and Brackets Subsystem
Engine Frames
Engine Mountings
Hangine Eyes
Misc.
A
A
B
et Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Mass
Reducxn
•kg'
0.000
0.769
0.334
0.000
1.103
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
VM
$0.00
$0.29
-$0.30
$0.00
-0.010
(Increase)
Average
Cos-;
Ktogram
S/kg
$0.00
$0.38
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.01
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducim
•%•
0.00%
13.41%
100.00%
0.00%
18.18%
Vehicle
Mass
Reducjon
•%•
0.00%
0.03%
0.01%
0.00%
0.04%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
{2} "-«-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.2 Crank Drive Subsystem
4.1.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.1-7, the most significant contributor to the Crank Drive Subsystem is
the crankshaft, comprising 15.4% of the engine mass. Included in the crankshaft mass is
the camshaft drive gear.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 260
Table 4.1-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Crank Drive Subsystem
CO
"i
OJ
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
10
15
99
Deseripoon
Crank Drive Subsystem
Crankshaft
Flywheel
Connect Rods (Assemblies: Connecting Rod, Connecting Rod Cap)
Pistons (Assemblies, Including Pistons, Ring Packs, Piston Pins.
Circlips)
Drive for Accessory Drives (Down force. Flywheel side)
Drive for Timing Drive (Down force. Flywheel side)
Adaptors
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsysem
Mass
•kg'
24.005
2.590
5.408
5.000
:.:::
0.000
0.000
0.000
37.003
239.945
2454
15.42%
1.51%
4.1.2.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
Silverado features a cast iron crankshaft with pressed timing target and camshaft drive
gear. The connecting rods are powder metal with crack break caps. The near net shape
powder metal part does not require balancing. A bronze split type bushing pressed into
the connecting rod creates the bearing surface for the floating wrist pin, which is trapped
into the piston by circlips. System components are pictured in Image 4.1-10.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 261
Image 4.1-10: Key Components - Crank Drive
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.2.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
In general, connecting rods are highly engineered and optimized. OEMs looking to
reduce mass of the connecting rod are using a premium steel and optimizing geometry.
Crack break forged steels such as C-70, C-70+, and 46MnVs4 provide a strength
advantage and therefore a mass savings over a powder metal rod. They are also cost-
competitive.
High-performance applications such as the Corvette, Porsche, and Acura NSX use
titanium. Although titanium connecting rods (Image 4.1-12) have superior performance
at high RPM, titanium's cost limits its use to high-performance applications. Titanium
connecting rods increase cost by roughly $50.00 per kg of mass saved.
Aluminum connecting rods (Image 4.1-11) are popular in the racing industry and can be
purchased from a variety of manufactures. Although typically machined from billet,
forged versions are also available. While lighter aluminum rods contribute to better
engine acceleration, they have durability and packaging issues not suiting them for
production use.
Aluminum metal matrix composites (MMCs) have proven themselves in the racing
industry. Aluminum MMCs have found success in wrist pin, connecting rod and piston
applications. The current cost of MMCs are cost prohibitive at roughly $60.00 per kg
saved, limiting their use to performance-driven racing applications.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 262
Image 4.1-11: (Left) Aluminum Connecting Rod
(Source: www.extremepsi.com)
Image 4.1-12: (Right) Titanium Connecting Rod
(Source: http.V/www.citycratemotors. com)
Crankshafts and pistons have fewer examples of lightweighting. Production pistons are
already lightweight aluminum, and packaging constraints associated with crankshafts
require the strength of steel and sufficient mass to counter the connecting rods.
4.1.2.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.1-8 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 263
Table 4.1-8: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Crank Drive Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Crankshaft
Crankshaft
Crankshaft
Crankshaft
Crankshaft
Crankshaft
Crankshaft Position
Target
Crankshaft Position
Target
Flywheel
Flywheel
Flywheel
Connecting Rod
Connecting Rod
Connecting Rods
Connecting Rod
Connecting Rod
Piston
Piston
Wrist Pin
Wrist Pin
Wrist Pin
Mass-Reduction Idea
Hollow cast
Drilled rod mains
Drilled mains
Undercut counter weights
Cast to forged and
downsized
Premium material
Thin stamp
External crank target
sensor
Add Lightening Holes
Aluminum with bolted ring
gear
Mild Steel to AHSS
Con Rod Material &
Geometry Optimization
High copper alloy
Alloy Steel to AI/MMC
Titanium
Aluminum
Aluminum to Aluminum-
MMC
Weight Reduction Pockets
Steel to Aluminum-MMC
Steel to tool steel
trapezoidal cross section
Estimated Impact
5% mass reduction
2% mass reduction
2% mass reduction
5% mass reduction
5% mass reduction
1 0% mass
reduction
75% mass
reduction
75% mass
reduction
5% mass reduction
0% mass reduction
1 5% mass
reduction
20% mass
reduction
0% mass reduction
45% mass
reduction
45% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
25% mass
reduction
25% mass
reduction
35% mass
reduction
0% mass reduction
20% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Oil porting challenge, increases main
journal diameter
Additional Operation, Oil porting
challenge
Additional Operation, Oil porting
challenge
Increases counterweight diameter,
difficult to machine
Forging cost premium
Size is driven by mating components
Effects crankshaft balance
Effects crankshaft balance
Insufficient strength
mass neutral
Limitations due to formability/weldability
Crack forge steel offers strength and
cost advantage
Mass neutral
Cost prohibitive
Cost prohibitive
Durability concern - fatigue life
Cost prohibitive
Direct injection technology
Cost prohibitive
Material already optimized
Added manufacturing complexity
Concepts for lightweighting the crankshaft center around removing non-stressed areas
such as hollowing the mains and optimizing counter weight geometry. Changing the
forming process from cast to forge was reviewed, but detailed design work would be
required to quantify mass savings. Opportunity to leverage the improved mechanical
properties of forged steel is limited by cylinder block driven geometry. Driven by
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 264
performance, a number of lightweighting options have been successfully implemented for
connecting rods, wristpins, and pistons, however these solutions are cost prohibitive for
standard performance engine systems.
Other ideas considered included crankshaft position target and flexplate. The LC9
crankshaft position target appears to be integral to crankshaft balancing and, therefore,
was not lightweighted. Aluminum flexplates are available for aftermarket applications,
but the gear requires steel for strength. Also, the fasteners used to join the aluminum hub
and gear offset mass savings and increase cost.
4.1.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.1-9 lists mass reduction ideas applied to Crank Drive Subsystem.
Table 4.1-9: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Crank Drive Subsystem
O>
cn.
oT
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
ni
01
01
V)
ubsystem
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
c
cr
-Subsyste
3
00
01
02
03
04
05
10
15
99
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Crank Drive Subsystem
Crankshaft
Flywheel
Connect Rods (Assemblies:
Connecting Rod, Connecting Rod
Cap)
Pistons (Assemblies, Including
Pistons, Ring Packs, Piston Pins,
Circlips)
Drive for Accessory Drives (Down
force, Flywheel side)
Drive for Timing Drive (Down force,
Flywheel side)
Adaptors
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Hollow-Cast
N/A
Geometry optimization using C-70
Wristpin trapezoidal cross section
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Silverado features a solid cast crankshaft (Image 4.1-13). Cored crankshafts (Image
4.1-14) save mass by removing non-stressed mass from the main journals. Using a
casting core, geometry can be optimized to maintain strength while providing material to
house required oil porting. The use of cores eliminates the need for additional machining.
Production applications include BMW's 4.4L V8 (Image 4.1-15) and Infinity 4.5L V8.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 265
Cored Main
Journals
Solid Main
Journals
i
Image 4.1-13: (Left) Solid Cast Crankshaft (Silverado)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-14: (Right) Cored Crankshaft (BMW)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-15: BMW 4.4L V8
(Source: eurochopshop.com. photo)
Forged connecting rods have a strength advantage over powder metal. To quantify the
mass savings potential of moving to a forged rod, FEV began by estimating the peak
combustion pressure (70 bar) based on similar engines and applied a 1.1 safety factor to
calculate the peak compressive force. The piston mass and peak RPM were used to
calculate peak tension force occurring during the intake stroke, again using 1.1 SF. The
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 266
LC9 PM rod (Image 4.1-16) and a lightweight C-70 rod (Image 4.1-17) were modeled in
CAD.
Image 4.1-16: (Left) Vortech PM Rod
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-17: (Right) FEV C-70 Rod
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Loads were applied to determine minimum and maximum principle stresses (Image
4.1-18). Based on these stresses fatigue life was calculated for both rods. Fatigue results
for the C-70 rod initially did not meet minimum life and geometry required numerous
iterations to achieve the final result of 23% mass savings or 1.07 kg per vehicle. Fatigue
life of the optimized C-70 rod exceeds that of the Silverado PM Rod as modeled by FEV.
While the lightweighted connecting rod impacts the overall vehicle weight, the most
significant benefit is reduced friction and improved mechanical efficiency[29].
29 media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/press_kits.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/May/0510_ats.html
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 267
Frame 16 of IS
Stress Max Prin (WCS)
(MPo)
Deformed
Scale I.4474E-OI
LoodsehLoadSell -. FORGED-ROD-CONN-BflSE-V2
"Windowl" - Anaiysisi - Anolysisl
Image 4.1-18: FEV C-70 Rod Principle Stress Analysis
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The piston pin found on Silverado is a forged tube of equal wall thickness across its
length (Image 4.1-19) and represents a standard design for piston pins. Tapering the pin
cross section (Image 4.1-20) by increasing the inner diameter toward the pin ends
reduces mass while maintaining strength requirements. The taper feature can be
integrated into the cold forming operation to minimize costs. Piston pin tapering saves
23% mass.
Image 4.1-19: (Left) Silverado Piston Pin
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-20: (Right) Tapered Piston Pin
(Source: http://77e21.info/strokerbuildbottomend.htm.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 268
4.1.2.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
As shown in Table 4.1-10, mass reductions for the Crank Drive Subsystem save $1.24
per kg. The cost savings for this subsystem is a result of processing savings of a hot
forged connecting rod as compared to a powder metal connecting rod. Cost increases
were estimated for the crankshaft and piston pin.
Table 4.1-10: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Crank Drive Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
C/J
I
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
"pT
01
Subsystem
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
"63"
03
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
65
66
"67
99
Descriptor!
Crank Drive Subsystem
Crankshaft
Flywheel
Connect Rods (Assemblies: Connecting Rod.
Connecting Rod Cap)
Pistons (Assemblies. Including Pistons. Ring
Packs. Piston Pins. Circlips)
Drive for Accessory' Drives (Down force.
Flywheel side)
Drive for Timing Drive (Down force. Flywheel
side)
Adaptors
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Lsve
Ses~
C
A
D
A
Mass
Reduction
'kg' {i>
1.032
0.000
1.072
0.272
0.000
0.000
olbo
0.000
2.376
(Decrease;
Cos Impac
T<2)
-$2.29
$0.00
$6.34
-$1.10
$0.00
$0.00
$o"."6o
$0.00
2.952
(Decrease)
Average
Coss/
Kite; ram
S/kg
-$2.22
$0.00
$5.92
-$4.05
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$1.24
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducson
•%'
4.30%
0.00%
19.82%
5.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6,42%
Vehide
Mass
Reducwn
•%•
0.04%
0.00%
0.04%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.10%
(1) "+" = mass decrease,"-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.3 Cylinder Block Subsystem
4.1.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.1-11, the cylinder block is the most massive Engine Subsystem,
making up 25% of the total Engine System mass.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 269
Table 4.1-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cylinder Block Subsystem
to
m
(D
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
65
66
67
99
Description
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Block
Crankshaft Bearing Caps
Bedplates
Piston Cooling
Crankcase Adaptor
Water Jacket
Clinder Barrel
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sur>
surjsystem
Mass
'kg'
47.150
7.7S2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
:.:::
4.932
59.864
239.945
2454
24.95%
2.44%
4.1.3.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
Silverado's 5.3L features lightweight aluminum construction (Image 4.1-21). The sand
cast aluminum cylinder block is a deep skirt style with 6-bolt mains and powder metal
main caps. The dry sleeve, closed deck design consists of cast iron liners over-molded
into the cylinder block. Other components included in this subsystem are front cover, rear
cover, and cylinder deactivation assembly - all diecast aluminum. Thick sections, 6-bolt
mains, and closed deck features make the generation IV block an extremely durable
design.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 270
Image 4.1-21: Key Components - Cylinder Block Subsystem
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.3.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Grey cast iron is still a popular choice for engine blocks. Among the advantages are
strength, wear performance, corrosion resistance, castability, NVH, and cost. Compacted
graphite iron (CGI) is increasing in popularity for its improved strength over grey cast
iron, permitting thinner cross sections and weight reductions over conventional grey
cast.[30] CGI is mostly used in European diesel engine applications. Over the past decade,
the weight advantage of aluminum has fostered its growth as a material choice for engine
blocks and now makes up 60% of engine blocks in production. Under consumer pressure
for better fuel economy automakers are now turning their attention to the even lighter
magnesium alloys for engine block applications.
Volkswagen has used magnesium cylinders in its four-cylinder air-cooled boxer engine in
the Beatle and other vehicles for decades. BMW has taken the lead in magnesium alloy
engine block applications. BMW's Z4 Roadster debuted in 2004 as the lightest 3.0 L
inline six-cylinder gas engine in the world, made possible by the composite magnesium-
aluminum alloy engine. The engines success lead to its implementation in subsequent
BMW models exceeding over 300,000 units in 2006[31].
30 http://claymore.engineer.gvsu.edu/~nguyenn/egr250/automotive%20engine%20bl
31 http://www.intlmag.org/files/mgOO 1 .pdf
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 271
In 2010, a joint effort among GM, Ford, and Chrysler concluded through extensive
testing magnesium was a feasible engine block material as tested on the Ford Duratec®
2.5L V6. Changes for successful implementation include ethylene glycol coolant with
magnesium protective additives and a new head gasket design to accommodate the
aluminum head to magnesium block interface. Iron bulkheads were also required for
added strength and further bulk head development is required to prevent failures. The
engine block mass was reduced by 25% without any significant compromises to
performance.[32] Increasing peak combustion pressures associated with the recent turbo
downsizing trend are driving a need for stronger cylinder block materials and a potential
turn away from magnesium development.
4.1.3.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.1-12 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Cylinder Block Subsystem.
Table 4.1-12: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Cylinder Block Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Rear Main Seal
Retainer
Rear Main Seal
Retainer
Cylinder Liner
Cylinder Liner
Core Plugs
Cylinder Block
Cylinder Block
Main Bearing Caps
Main Bearing Caps
Cylinder Deactivation
Assembly
Cylinder Deactivation
Assembly
Cylinder Deactivation
Assembly
Mass-Reduction Idea
Aluminum to Magnesium
Aluminum to Plastic
Plasma Cylinder Liner
Dual Material (Federal-
Mogul)
Steel to Aluminum
Reduce size of cyl
deactivation bosses
PM MMC structural insert
Geometry optimization
Cast Iron to PM MMC
Upper Plate - Aluminum to
Magnesium
Integrate coil mounts into
Cylinder Block
Upper Plate - Aluminum to
plastic
Estimated Impact
30% mass
reduction
40% mass
reduction
55% mass
reduction
0% mass reduction
50% mass
reduction
2% mass reduction
1 0% mass
reduction
0% mass reduction
45% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
20% mass
reduction
50% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Cost increase
Structural Loss
Improved heat transfer
Enables engine downsizing by
strengthening cast liner bond
Limited mass savings impact
Requires two piece core, Cost
Prohibitive
Cost prohibitive
All area is functional
Cost prohibitive
Coated fasteners required
CAE model required for evaluation
Strength concern
32 wwwl.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/deer_2010/wednesday/presentations/deerlO_powell.pdf
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 272
Magnesium and plastic were considered for lightweighting the rear main seal retainer.
Plastic has a mass savings and cost advantage over magnesium but less durable.
A dual material cylinder liner offered by Federal Mogul increases the bond between cast
iron cylinder liners and the aluminum cylinder block, reducing bore distortion and
permitting higher combustion pressures. This technology, however, does not exhibit
opportunity for the naturally aspirated Silverado engine.
Powder metal matrix composite (MMC) was considered for the main bearing caps and
would save significant mass. Aluminum MMCs have also been used as structural
reinforcing members of racing engine blocks and could potentially save mass. Aluminum
MMCs at this point are cost-limited to racing applications. The relatively inexpensive
cost of the raw materials may make aluminum MMCs a key consideration in future
lightweighting.
Mass reduction opportunities for cylinder deactivation include material replacements for
the aluminum mounting plate, direct mounting of the control coils to the cylinder block
and optimizing the block port bosses. Due to hydraulic pressures required to drive the
valvetrain, plastic was eliminated from consideration as a mounting plate material. Direct
mounting of the control coils has potential for mass reduction but requires CAE modeling
for evaluation. The wall thickness of the cylinder deactivation bosses connecting the
deactivation assembly to the lifters appears to have opportunity for material removal
(Image 4.1-22). Reducing boss thickness either requires a new sealing design or stepping
out the diameter to maintain the sealing surface area.
Image 4.1-22: Cylinder Deactivation Bosses
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.1-13 outlines the ideas selected to lightweight the Cylinder Block Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 273
Table 4.1-13: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Cylinder Block Subsystem Analysis
co
*<
|
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
| Subsystem
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
65
66
67
99
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Block
Crankshaft Bearing Caps
Bedplates
Piston Cooling
Crankcase Adaptor
Water Jacket
Cylinder Barrel
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Rear Main Seal Retainer - Aluminum to Plastic
Cylinder Liner - cast steel to plasma coated
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cylinder Deactivation Plate - Al to Mg
Heat stabilized PA4T-GF30 was selected to replace aluminum as a base material for the
rear main seal housing (Image 4.1-23). This blend of polymer performs well under heat
with 0.075mm of variation in the flow direction and 0.15mm of variation in the cross
flow direction. Included in the cost evaluation are fastener support inserts, threaded
inserts, and a main seal insert. A similar plastic application is the timing cover pictured in
Image 4.1-24.
Image 4.1-23: (Left) Silverado Main Seal Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-24: (Right) Plastic Timing Cover
(http://www. marinerecycling. com/parting_used_outboards. html)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 274
In order to stiffen the plastic version of the aluminum Silverado housing, 20% part
volume was added resulting in an overall mass savings of 38%.
The Silverado Generation IV engine block uses standard cast iron cylinder liners. These
liners are inserted into the casting cavity prior to filling. Following casting, the liners are
machined to finish the cylinder bore. Plasma Transfer Wire Arc (PTWA) is a new
method of forming an iron surface for the cylinder wall (Image 4.1-25). The alternative
process began development by Ford in the early 1990s and was first implemented on the
2008 Nissan GT-R and the 2011 Shelby Mustang GT500. With PTWA, the aluminum
engine block is cast without liners and the aluminum bore is pre-machined to near net
size. The bore is then cleaned and fluxed, followed by a bonding coat. Low carbon steel
wire is continuously fed into the nozzle apparatus and deposited on the cylinder wall.
After matching the remaining plasma coating is .070-. 170 mm in thickness. This is
roughly 10% of the cast liner thickness found on Silverado's 5.3L. This ultra-thin surface
improves heat transfer (Image 4.1-26) between the combustion process and the
aluminum block.[33] Although Ford has patented its PTWA process, plasma can be used to
apply cylinder coatings in a variety of ways: BMW's new N20 engine block uses two
iron wires in a similar process. Volkswagen has a cylinder coating process in which steel
and molybdenum powder is applied by a plasma jet. Production applications included
Volkswagen's Touareg, Lupo, and Van T5. High-Velocity Oxy-Fuel (HVOF) has also
been used for the cylinder friction surfaces. In addition to weight savings, plasma liners
offer improved overall performance and durability, along with functional benefits of
improved heat transfer and reduced friction between piston rings and cylinder bores.[34]
33 http://www.me.berkeley.edu/~mford/Ford_Fisher_PTWA.pdf
34 http://svtusa.com/2010/02/hello-world/
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 275
Image 4.1-25: (Left) [Base Technology] Cast Iron Cylinder Liners
(Source: http://www. anandenterprise. com/innovation, html)
Image 4.1-26: (Right) [New Technology] Plasma Transfer Wire Arc (PTWA)
(Source: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/05/ptwa-20090529.html)
Dimensions for Silverado's cast cylinder liner were estimated at an average thickness of
1.7 mm and 526 grams per liner. A plasma liner mass estimate was developed using 0.15
mm thickness resulting in a mass savings of 2.36 kg for the engine. Additional cast
aluminum mass and cost required for PTWA was included.
The cylinder deactivation plate (Image 4.1-27) serves as a mounting location for the
control solenoids and houses oil porting to the cylinder block. This plate, originally made
from diecast aluminum, was changed to magnesium. 10% volume was added to increase
strength in critical areas. Based on valve actuation forces magnesium's strength should be
sufficient for the application.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 276
Image 4.1-27: Cylinder Deactivation Plate
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.3.6 Mass reduction and Cost Impact Results
As shown in Table 4.1-14, mass reductions for the Cylinder Block Subsystem save costs.
Results for cylinder deactivation lightweighting are listed in the Miscellaneous Sub-
subsystem.
Table 4.1-14: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Block Subsystem
rj)
•f
01
01
01"
01
01
01
01
01
"of
Subsystem
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
~Q2
03
04
65
66
67
"99"
Descriptor!
Cylinder Block Subsystem
Cylinder Block
Crankshaft Bearing Caps
Bedplates
Piston Cooling
Crankcase Adaptor
Water Jacket
Clinder Barrel
Misc.
F
Idea
Levei
Setec
A
X
A
et Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Mass
Reducaon
•kg' (i)
2.934
0.000
0.000
0.000
blob'
0.000
0.000
0.364
3.298
(Decrease)
Co=: Ir.pac
T<2>
$2.78
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$"blb
$0.00
$0.00
-$1.98
0.797
(Decrease)
Average
CGSV
Ktogram
S/kg
$0.95
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$"b""bb
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.45
$0.24
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
ReduOBn
•%'
6.22%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
bl'b'%
0.00%
0.00%
7.38%
5.51%
Vehicle
Mass
RedinSon
•%'
0.12%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
blb'%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.13%
(1) "•!-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 277
4.1.4 Cylinder Head Subsystem
4.1.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.1-15, the bare head makes up a majority of the subsystem mass.
Included in the cylinder head mass is all pressed hardware including valve seats. Included
in "Other Parts for Cylinder Head" are the head gaskets, locators, and head bolts.
Table 4.1-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cylinder Head Subsystem.
CO
I
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 278
Image 4.1-28: Key Components - Cylinder Head Subsystem
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.4.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Cylinder head industry trends for lightweighting have been limited to the use of
aluminum. Magnesium alloy development for cylinder heads is ongoing and aims to
resolve stiffness, creep, and corrosion issues. In 2008, the Changchun Institute of Applied
Chemistry of CAS and FAW Group successfully developed a magnesium alloy cylinder
head for heavy-duty trucks. Over 15,000 cylinder heads have been produced from
magnesium alloy for heavy-duty trucks.[35] A popular choice for lightweight camshaft
covers continues to be plastic as well as some use of magnesium.
4.1.4.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
As a top subsystem mass contributor, the cylinder head was a focus for mass reduction.
Magnesium as a material replacement for aluminum was researched. A production
example of a magnesium cylinder head was difficult to find and no passenger car
applications were identified. The valve cover, a commonly plastic component, was
quickly identified as an opportunity. As another option for the valve cover, magnesium
offers mass savings and good durability but at a price premium.
Lowering the cylinder head deck height and adding depth to the valve cover. This idea
has potential to save mass but considering sophistication of cylinder head design this
requires detailed design work to validate functionality.
35 http://www.mubea.com/english/download/NW_engl.pdf
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 279
Scalloping or removing material between the spark plugs was investigated for mass
removal but doing so interferes with the water jacket. Reducing valve spring free height
and hence reducing cylinder head height was investigated with Mubea and determined
unfeasible. Table 4.1-16 summarizes ideas considered for the Cylinder Head Subsystem.
Table 4.1-16: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Cylinder Head Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Cylinder Head
Cylinder Head
Cylinder Head
Cylinder Head
Valve Covers
Valve Covers
Mass-Reduction Idea
Lower Cylinder Head
upper deck and add
material to valve cover
Scallop Cylinder Head
between spark plugs
Material change from
Aluminum to Magnesium
Reduce height through
valve spring optimization
Aluminum to Plastic
Aluminum to Magnesium
Estimated Impact
3% mass reduction
0% mass reduction
25% mass
reduction
7% mass reduction
50% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Design work required to validate
functionality
interferes with water jacket
No applicable examples
Valve Spring is already optimized
Sealing improvements required
Coated fasteners required
4.1.4.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.1-17 outlines the mass reduction ideas selected for the Cylinder Head
Subsystem. Lightweight and cost-effective, plastic has been proved viable as a Cylinder
Head Cover material.
Table 4.1-17: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Cylinder Head Subsystem
co
*<
|
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
| Subsystem
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
06
07
08
09
20
Description
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Cylinder Head
Valve, Guides, Valve Seats
Guides for Valvetrain
Camshaft Bearing Housing
Camshaft Speed Sensor
Camshaft Carrier
Other Parts for Cylinder Head
Cylinder Head Covers
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cylinder Head Cover - Aluminum to Plastic
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 280
The aluminum valve cover was changed to plastic as a weight save, cost save, and
performance benefit. Production examples include the Chrysler 4.7L V8 (Image 4.1-30)
and the Ford Duratec 2.0L.
Image 4.1-29: (Left) Silverado Valve Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-30: (Right) Chrysler 4.7L V8 Valve Cover
(Source: www.speautomotive.com)
4.1.4.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.1-18 summarizes lightweight activities applied to Cylinder Head Subsystem.
Plastic valve covers save over a kilogram of mass and are significantly less expensive
than cast aluminum. Fastener isolators with compression limiters were included in the
cost of the plastic covers. Implementing plastic in valve covers requires NVH
considerations.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 281
Table 4.1-18: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Cylinder Head Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
V)
C£
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
06
07
08
09
20
99
Description
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Cylinder Head
Valve, Guides, Valve Seats
Guides for Valvetrain
Camshaft Bearing Housing
Camshaft Speed Sensor
Camshaft Carrier
Other Parts for Cylinder Head
Cylinder Head Covers
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.161
0.000
1.161
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$6.06
$0.00
6.058
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$5.22
$0.00
$5.22
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
43.96%
0.00%
4.66%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.05%
0.00%
0.05%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.5 Valvetrain Subsystem
4.1.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.1-19, the most significant subsystem mass contributors were the valve
actuation elements followed by the camshaft. Weighing over 2 kg, the cam phaser has
notable mass content.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 282
Table 4.1-19: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Valvetrain Subsystem
U3
t
(D
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
m
c
cr
Crt
%
(D
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
ff>
£=
cr
t£>
£=
cr
07
t
(D
3
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
99
Descriptor
Valvetrain Subsystem
Inlet Valves
Outlet Valves
Valve Springs
Spring Retainers, Cotters. Spring Seats
Valve Actuation Elements: Rockers. Finger Followers, Hydraulic Lash
Adjusters,...
Camshafts
Camshaft Phaser and/or Cam Sprockets
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystems
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
T£
0.6S8
0.776
1.264
0.184
6.3SO
4604
2.362
0.000
16.258
239.945
2454
6.78%
0.66%
4.1.5.2
Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado valvetrain assembly can be seen in Image 4.1-31. Baseline technology
begins with a solenoid actuated hydraulic cam phaser. The cam phaser varies the intake
and exhaust timing events making this a variable valve timing engine. The cam phaser
consists of four main components; stator/drive gear, rotor, back plate and cover plate. The
cover plate is cold formed steel while the remaining components are sintered iron. The
camshaft timing target and phaser harness bracket are constructed of stamped steel.
GM's cam in block design utilizes hydraulic roller tappets to control valve lash. Half of
the tappets have an additional hydraulic collapsing spring mechanism used for cylinder
deactivation. The feature allows the valves to remain shut through the intake and exhaust
cycles to save fuel under low-load conditions. Standard push rods drive steel rockers
arms actuating the valves. The Silverado's valve springs are a beehive shape, tapered
toward the top of the spring. This lightweight design reduces valve spring retainer
diameter, thus saving mass. The engine valves are solid steel. The camshaft is core drilled
to reduce mass.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 283
Image 4.1-31: Valvetrain Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.5.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Composite or tubular camshafts used in Europe are made from seamless tube. Cam lobes
made from powder metal or forged steel are hydroformed in place. Composite camshafts
offer weight savings of up to 50% over traditional solid cast.
Advances in valve spring technology have led to many new design options, including
symmetrical, asymmetrical coiling, and tapered springs or beehive springs. All spring
types can be made from wire with round or profiled cross sections. Advances in materials
and processing techniques now permit lighter spring weights, smaller retaining diameters,
and shorter free lengths.
Mubea, a leading supplier of valve springs offers improvements over traditional designs
and manufacturing techniques.
Mubea offers ovate wire profiles (Image 4.1-32). As compared to conventional round,
ovate wire reduces the solid height of the spring (Image 4.1-33). The installed height can
be reduced proportionally. Mubea's spring also undergoes a special hardening process
after coiling. This optimizes the residual stress profile, resulting in the best possible
material properties and enabling a reduced wire diameter. The smaller wire diameter
reduces the solid height and resultant installed height. The shorter spring offers a
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 284
packaging advantage for cylinder head designers that can lead to reductions in cylinder
head size and valve length. Further refinements include a beehive style or tapered spring
(Image 4.1-33) that can reduce the valve keeper size. Lighter valve hardware mean
reduced inertia, less friction, and improved efficiency.
CT
....
Image 4.1-32: (Left) Ovate Wire Profile
(Source: HotRod.com)
Image 4.1-33: (Right) Spring Height, Ovate vs. Standard
(Source: HotRod.com)
4.1.5.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
As seen in Table 4.1-20, a variety of components were considered for mass reduction.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 285
Table 4.1-20: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Valvetrain Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Exhaust Valve
Exhaust Valve
Exhaust Valve
Exhaust Valve
Exhaust Valve
Exhaust Valve
Valve Spring
Valve Spring
Rocker Carrier Base
Rocker Carrier Base
Rocker Arm
Valve Spring Retainer
Push Rod
Camshaft
Camshaft
Cam Retaining Plate
Cam Sensor Target
Cam Phaser
Cam Phaser
Cam Phaser
Cam Phaser
Cam Phaser
Cam Phaser Harness
Bracket
Mass-Reduction Idea
Solid to Sodium Filled
Steel to Titanium
Solid to Sheet Steel
Hollow Head Valve (MHI)
Steel to Ceramic (SI3N4)
Steel to Carbon
Reinforced Polymer
Reduce wire diameter
Reduce coil count
Aluminum to Magnesium
Integrate into Cylinder
Head
Steel to Aluminum
Steel to Titanium
Steel to AHSS
Solid Cast to Tubular
Composite
Solid cast to hollow cast
Steel to Aluminum
solid steel to plastic with
metal insert
Cover & Back Plate - Iron
to Aluminum
Stator, Rotor, & Cover
Plate - Iron to Aluminum
Stator & Cover integrated
into Plastic
Gear material from Steel
to Titanium
Lightening windows
around Stator bolts
Steel to Plastic
Estimated Impact
20% mass
reduction
45% mass
reduction
50% mass
reduction
15% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
80% mass
reduction
10% mass
reduction
10% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
50% mass
reduction
50% mass
reduction
45% mass
reduction
10% mass
reduction
20% mass
reduction
20% mass
reduction
45% mass
reduction
50% mass
reduction
15% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
60% mass
reduction
15% mass
reduction
5% mass reduction
75% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Cost prohibitive / performance
advantage
Cost prohibitive / performance
advantage
Cost prohibitive / performance
advantage
Cost prohibitive / performance
advantage
No applicable examples for petrol
engines
Cost prohibitive, durability issues
durability issues
durability issues
Incompatible with Steel rocker mount,
limited opportunity
Manufacturability concern, limited
opportunity
Packaging issue
Cost prohibitive / performance
advantage
Limited opportunity
Cost Prohibitive
Reduced strength
Bearing insert required
Limited opportunity, joining issue
Aluminum wear surfaces
Insufficient Strength
insufficient rotor strength
limited to belt drive
Cost prohibitive
Limited opportunity
Component reduction
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 286
Due to the relationship between valve train mass and performance, much work has been
done in the area of valvetrain lightweighting. Although viable for high-output, high-
revving engines, these performance-driven solutions were not found to be economical
from a standpoint of vehicle mass reduction.
A variety of lightweight valve materials were considered as replacements for Silverado's
steel valves. Sodium engine valves have a cavity created by a hollow stem and are
partially filled with sodium. Back-and-forth sloshing, driven by the action of the valve,
transfers heat from the head of the valve through to the stem, evening the valve
temperatures. A sodium-filled Corvette engine valve was analyzed as the subject of this
study (Image 4.1-34). Although lighter, the engine was determined to be cost-prohibitive
for vehicle lightweighting despite drilling, reaming, filling, and welding of hollow valves.
Image 4.1-34: Hollow Stem Engine Valve - Corvette
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Titanium can be found within various valvetrain components, including valves. Although
titanium is nearly half the density of steel with similar strength, its high cost limits use to
high performance applications regardless of the engine component for which it is being
considered. Popular applications include valves and valve spring retainers.
Mahle has developed a new lightweight engine valve with a welded structure made from
cold formed steel sheet parts (Image 4.1-35). The precision laser-welded joint and cold-
formed features require no additional processing: only the functional areas are still
ground. Sodium can be introduced into the hollow cavity of the exhaust valves, reducing
valve temperatures. Weight reductions of up to 50% are possible over conventional solid
stem valves. Lighter valves enable lighter cam lobes, cam followers, tappets and valve
springs.[36] Silverado valve geometry in its current design does not lend itself to sheet
valve technology. A complete system redesign would be required to evaluate if this
technology could work on Silverado and therefor this idea was not selected.
36 http://www.foundryworld.com/english/news/view.asp?bid= 106&id=264
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 287
Image 4.1-35: Mahle Sheet Steel Valve
(Source: http://www. tokyo-motorshow. com)
The base valve spring (Image 4.1-36) found on the Silverado has lightweight beehive
geometry. Mubea, supplier of the valve spring and a leader in valve spring technology,
reviewed the spring and indicated it is the lightest configuration available at this time.
Image 4.1-36: [Base Technology] Valve Spring
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Rocker arms, traditionally made from steel, can be made from aluminum (
Image 4.1-37). Production examples include the Nissan Frontier and Isuzu Trooper. Arm
ends require wear pads and all designs reviewed were continuous shaft mounted
potentially creating packaging issues and cylinder head redesign with unknown mass
impact. For this reason aluminum rocker arms were not implemented for Silverado mass
savings.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 288
Image 4.1-37: Aluminum Rocker Arm
(Source: www.autohausaz.com)
The cam phaser assembly, made up of many subcomponents, can be manufactured from
powder metal aluminum rather than sintered iron (Image 4.1-38). SHW Automotive, a
2010 European Powder Metallurgy Association award winner for excellence in powder
metal, offers this technology in large-scale production (700,000 units per year). In this
application mass savings is complimented by a performance advantage of reducing
valvetrain inertia.[37] In addition to aluminum, Hilite International has developed a plastic
stator with integrated lid (Image 4.1-39). Initial testing of the concept has indicated
promising durability. Plastic offers further mass savings and reduced costs. Due to the
Silverado's valvetrain loads, aluminum and plastic were not selected for stator, rotor, or
gear.
37 http://svtusa.com/2010/02/hello-world/
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 289
Image 4.1-38: Aluminum Phaser Sprocket and Rotor
(Source: www.ipmd.net)
Image 4.1-39: Plastic Stator
(Source: www.hilite.com)
Mubea develops lightweight vehicle technology and supplies composite camshafts to the
European passenger car market (Image 4.1-40). Mubea's process uses internal high-
pressure fluid to expand the camshaft tube inside servo positioned camshaft lobes. This
assembly process opens the range of materials that can be considered for lobe design and
concentrates the material to the critical cam lobe region.[38] GM's cam-in-block design
requires that bearing diameters exceed lobe diameters. In addition, with a single cam
servicing both intake and exhaust, loads are higher. Considering other alternatives,
38 http://www.foundryworld.com/english/news/view.asp?bid=106&id=264
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 290
hydroforming was not selected as the optimum manufacturing method for the Silverado
application.
Image 4.1-40: Hydroformed Camshaft
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Hollow cast camshafts are lightweighting technology that can be found in GM's Ecotec
line-up. As part of a previous study, a 1.4L camshaft was purchased and sectioned
(Image 4.1-41). Analysis found that the cored cavity saved 21% mass over the same
camshaft cast from solid.
Image 4.1-41: Hollow Cast Camshaft - 1.4L Ecotec
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Quantifying hollow cast mass on Silverado's camshaft started by modeling the camshaft
in CAD (Image 4.1-42). Using the Ecotec wall thickness (6 mm) and profiling outer
geometry, the core cavity was created. Based on this analysis, a hollow cast camshaft
saves 20% mass over the base core drilled camshaft (Image 4.1-43). Unfortunately, a
hollow cast camshaft does not offer the strength required for this V8 application.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 291
4.1.5.5
Image 4.1-42: (Left): 5.3L Hollow Cast Concept CAD
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-43: (Right): 5.3L Camshaft - Sectioned
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.1-21 lists the ideas selected for lightweighting the Silverado valvetrain. Due to
the high costs of lightweighting valvetrain technologies, viable lightweighting
opportunities were limited to the Camshaft Retaining Plate and Phaser Harness Bracket.
Table 4.1-21: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Valvetrain Subsystem
O>
CD"
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
V)
c
sr
><
ub-Subs
*<
CO
Zi
CD
3
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
99
Description
Valvetrain Subsystem
Inlet Valves
Outlet Valves
Valve Springs
Spring Retainers, Cotters, Spring
Seats
Valve Actuation Elements: Rockers,
Finger Followers, Hydraulic Lash
Adjusters,...
Camshafts
Camshaft Phaser and/or Cam
Sprockets
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Camshaft Retaining Plate - Steel to Al
Cam Phaser Harness Bracket - Steel to Plastic
N/A
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 292
The cam phaser wiring bracket is a stamped steel assembly (Image 4.1-44), but could be
made from plastic to save mass. Metal to plastic conversion in this application saves 107
grams.
Image 4.1-44: Wiring Bracket - Phaser
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The camshaft retaining plate (Image 4.1-44) was lightweighted by replacing the steel
component with aluminum. The aluminum part would be designed with a steel insert
pressed in to create a bearing surface for camshaft thrust.
Image 4.1-45: Camshaft Retaining Plate - Phaser
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.5.6 Calculated Mass reduction and Cost Impact Results
As seen in Table 4.1-22, hollow cast camshaft saves nearly a kilogram. Moving from
solid steel to cored cast iron reduces cost. Replacing steel with aluminum in the cam
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 293
phaser covers increases cost. Overall, lightweighting of the Valvetrain Subsystem
resulted in a moderate cost increase.
Table 4.1-22: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Valvetrain Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
en
!
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
08
99
Description
Valvetain Subsystem
Inlet Valves
Outlet Valves
Valve Springs
Spring Retainers, Cotters, Spring Seats
Valve Actuation Elements: Rockers, Finger
Followers, Hydraulic Lash Adjusters,...
Camshafts
Camshaft Phaser and/or Cam Sprockets
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
B
A
A
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(D
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.085
0.107
0.000
0.192
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost Impact
"$" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.03
$0.08
$0.00
0.050
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.39
$0.78
$0.00
$0.26
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 .85%
4.51%
0.00%
1.18%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.6 Timing Drive Subsystem
4.1.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in the following Table 4.1-23, the most significant mass contributors to the
Timing Drive Subsystem are the covers and the chains. The driven timing sprocket was
integrated into the cam phaser and the driving timing sprocket is included in the
crankshaft mass, therefore no mass is reported for the Timing Wheels (Sprockets) Sub-
subsystem. The guide and tensioner are one assembly, so mass was binned to the Guides
Sub-subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 294
Table 4.1-23: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Timing Drive Subsystem.
CO
%
CD
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsjtfem
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
05
06
99
Description
Timing Drive Subsystem
Timing Wheels (Sprockets)
Tensioners
Guides
Belts, Chains
Covers
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
'kg'
:.:::
0.000
0.199
0.251
1.3::
0.000
1.750
239.945
2454
0.73%
0.07%
4.1.6.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
Image 4.1-46 shows the Silverado timing drive with the oil pump assembled. The single
cam-in-block design simplifies the Timing Drive System. The system starts with a timing
drive gear pressed onto the crankshaft. This gear also features a splined hub driving the
oil pump. Rotation is translated through a single roller chain driving the cam phaser. The
timing chain tensioner has a stamped steel frame with plastic wear surfaces. A strip of
spring steel creates the tensioning mechanism in this short drive system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 295
Image 4.1-46: Silverado Timing Drive System
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.6.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Belt systems can offer a mass advantage over chains in systems with more length like
dual overhead "V" configurations. Although OEMs have trended away from belts due to
durability issues, belts are still common. Nylon tensioning and guide systems have
replaced metal in many overhead cam timing drives (Image 4.1-47). These systems are
lighter and less expensive than metal.
Image 4.1-47: Nylon Tensioning and Guide System
(Source: http://www.iwis.de)
Front covers or timing covers have trended to lightweight materials like magnesium or
plastic. Advances in plastic technology have improved thermal resistance and coolant
compatibility. Magnesium, although more expensive, has the structural capability to
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 296
support accessories and mountings (Image 4.1-48). Plastic timing covers are common
place on dry belt drive systems. Plastic timing covers on chain drive systems is a
developing technology.
Image 4.1-48: Magnesium Timing Cover - Porsche
(Source: http://www.gfau.com)
4.1.6.4
Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.1-24 lists the ideas generated for lightweighting the timing drive. As largest mass
contributor, the front cover was reviewed for alternate materials. Magnesium offers a
weight advantage over the base aluminum cover, but at a higher cost and mass than
plastic. Plastic timing covers have been mass produced for decades on belt drive (dry)
systems and offer a substantial weight savings.
The timing chain and drive gears require demanding durability characteristics.
Lightweight materials such as titanium or metal matrix composites exceed cost targets;
therefore, no alternatives were proposed for these components.
Although numerous examples of fully plastic guide systems are available, no cam-in-
block examples were identified. At 167 grams, there is limited opportunity for
lightweighting.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 297
Table 4.1-24: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Timing Drive Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Timing Chain Guide
Front Cover
Front Cover
Front Cover
Mass-Reduction Idea
Steel to Plastic
Integrate into Cylinder
Block
Aluminum to Plastic
Aluminum to Magnesium
Estimated Impact
60% mass
reduction
0% mass reduction
40% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Limited opportunity, no production
examples for cam-in-block
Mass neutral
Reduced durability
Requires coated fasteners
4.1.6.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
As seen in Table 4.1-25, the front cover was the only component selected for
lightweighting. This single component made up a majority of the subsystem mass.
Table 4.1-25: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Timing Drive Subsystem
co
*<
|
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
05
06
99
Description
Timing Drive Subsystem
Timing Wheels (Sprockets)
Tensioners
Guides
Belts, Chains
Covers
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Front Cover - Al to Plastic
N/A
The LC9 engine's diecast aluminum front cover (Image 4.1-49) encloses the timing drive
and provides mounting for the phaser solenoid, cam timing sensor, and front crankshaft
seal. The cover is exposed to engine heat and oil, and must provide accurate positioning
of the crankshaft seal as well as support phaser solenoid load. The 2.4 kg of solenoid
force that the cover must support is within the capabilities of plastic. Plastic can also
withstand the heat and oil conditions seen in this application. Plastic front covers have
been used in similar GM applications such as the 4.3L Vortec (Image 4.1-50). Sealing a
plastic front cover may require changes to the oil pan. Mounting the cover to the front of
the oil pan could save additional mass. DSM has recommend, heat stabilized, glass
reinforced Stanyl® ForTii™ (PA4T-GF30) for front cover applications. To calculate
mass, 20% volume was added for additional ribbing. Cost considerations were made for
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 298
fastener inserts, threaded inserts and press in place gaskets to accommodate the plastic
part.
Image 4.1-49: (Left) Silverado Front Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-50: Plastic Front Cover 4.3L Vortech
(Source: http://www.gmpartsbarn. com)
4.1.6.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
As seen in Table 4.1-26, changing the front cover to plastic resulted in a cost penalty.
This was driven by a premium plastic selection to ensure durability. Production examples
exist using less expensive polymers that could save cost.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 299
Table 4.1-26: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Timing Drive Subsystem
g
sa
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
05
06
99
Description
Timing Drive Subsystem
Timing Wheels (Sprockets)
Tensioners
Guides
Belts, Chains
Covers
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
X
X
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.415
0.000
0.415
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.44
$0.00
-2.442
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$5.88
$0.00
-$5.88
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
31 .93%
0.00%
23.72%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0.02%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.7 Accessory Drive Subsystem
4.1.7.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Mass breakdown of the Accessory Drive Subsystem is listed in (Table 4.1-27). The
pulleys made up a majority of subsystem mass, followed by the tensioner and serpentine
belt.
Table 4.1-27: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Accessory Drive Subsystem.
fJ-J
%
(D
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
09
09
09
09
09
09
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
05
99
Descriptor!
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Pulleys
Tensioners
Guides
Belts
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsyssm &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
W
7.270
0.745
:.:::
:.257
:.:::
8.272
239.945
2454
3.45%
0.34%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 300
4.1.7.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
Accessory System drive components included two drive belts, belt tensioner, tensioner
pulley, idler pulley, AC pulley, power steering pulley, water pump pulley, and crankshaft
pulley (Image 4.1-51).
Image 4.1-51: Accessory Drive Subsystem Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.7.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Accessory drive pulleys, also referred to as Fiat drive pulleys, have been lightweighted
using plastic and aluminum. The most recent trend is electric actuation of these
components to improve efficiency. Electric power steering systems, as well as electric
water pumps, are now replacing standard belt driven pumps. Electric systems are higher
in cost, but only use as much crankshaft power as is needed for their functions. Belt-
driven water pumps for example, continue to increase in RPM and energy consumption
as the engine accelerates. However, engine cooling needs are not directly linked to RPM,
but rather depend on a variety of factors like ambient temperature and payload. An
electric system, in which engine temperature is electronically controlled, saves energy
when cooling needs are below peak.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 301
4.1.7.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
As shown in Table 4.1-28, pulleys were the focus of mass reduction. All pulleys had one
or more lightweighting approaches suggested except the tensioner pulley which was
already plastic.
Table 4.1-28: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Accessory Drive Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
AC Compressor Pulley
Idler Pulley
Alternator Pulley
Water Pump Pulley
Water Pump Pulley
Power Steering Pump
Pulley
Power Steering Pump
Pulley
Crankshaft Pulley
Crankshaft Pulley
Mass-Reduction Idea
Steel to Plastic
Steel to Plastic
Press fit and eliminate nut
Lightening holes and
Aluminum
Steel to Plastic
Steel to Aluminum
Steel to Plastic
Cast Iron to Plastic
Hub from cast Iron to cast
Aluminum
Estimated Impact
60% mass
reduction
65% mass
reduction
20% mass
reduction
55% mass
reduction
65% mass
reduction
55% mass
reduction
60% mass
reduction
75% mass
reduction
45% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Reduced durability
Established plastic application
Reduces serviceability
Increased Cost
Reduced durability
Increased Cost
Reduced durability
Static charge dissipation issue
Requires hub insert
Strength Concern
Plastic and aluminum were considered as alternatives to steel for the water pump and
power steering pump pulleys. BMW's 3.0L six-cylinder has examples of both pulleys
constructed from plastic (Image 4.1-52 and Image 4.1-53). Plastic was not selected for
lightweighting the water pump or power steering pump pulleys because greater savings
could be achieved with electromechanical devices.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 302
Image 4.1-52 (Left): Plastic Water Pump Pulley - BMW 3.0L
(Source: http.V/www.fcpeuro. com)
Image 4.1-53 (Right): Plastic Power Steering Pulley - BMW 3.0L
(Source: http://www. ecstuning. com)
Weighing 4.6 kg, the Silverado crankshaft pulley had significant opportunity for
lightweighting. A plastic crankshaft pulley developed by Eagle Picher and DuPont™ has
been built and tested for a 3.6L V6 application (Image 4.1-54). The plastic pulley passed
durability testing but the static charge dissipation efficiency did not meet requirements.
Specifics on the project and testing details were unavailable and the idea was not
selected.
Steel Hub / Insert
Zytel® HTN51G45 PPA Nylon overmold
Image 4.1-54: Plastic Crankshaft Pulley - Eagle Picher and DuPont
(Source: DuPont)
4.1.7.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Ideas selected to lightweight the Accessory Drive Subsystem are listed in Table 4.1-29.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 303
Table 4.1-29: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Accessory Drive Subsystem
O>
CD"
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
| Subsystem
09
09
09
09
09
09
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
05
99
Description
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Pulleys
Tensioners
Guides
Belts
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
AC Compressor Pulley - Metal to Plastic
Idler Pulley - Steel to Plastic
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Silverado's AC compressor pulley is made from steel (Image 4.1-55). The 2011
Volkswagen polo has a plastic compressor pulley (Image 4.1-56). Volkswagen's plastic
pulley is a phenol-formaldehyde (PF) thermoset with 40% glass (phenolic), providing
stiffness, strength, and dimensional stability. The drawback of phenolic is its low
elongation; that is, it is brittle. After reviewing this application, DuPont recommended its
Zytel® HTN51LG50. This 50% long glass reinforced nylon is a heat-stabilized, lubricated
polyamide resin and would outperform PF in this application. Zytel® HTN has lower
density and superior mechanical properties (Table 4.1-30) that could improve durability.
Mass for the plastic pulley was estimated by weighing a plastic AC pulley of similar size.
Image 4.1-55 (Left): Metal AC Compressor Pulley Silverado
Image 4.1-56 (Right): Plastic AC Compressor Pulley Volkswagen Polo
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 304
Table 4.1-30: Mechanical Properties - Phenolic vs. Zytel HTN
Generic Identification
Product Name
Density
Temp of deflect under load (°C @1.8 Mpa)
Coeff of linear therm exp - Parallel (10-6/°C)
Coeff of linear therm exp - Perpend (10-6/°C)
Charpy Impact Strength - Notched (kJ/m2)
Flexural strength (Mpa)
Flexural Modulus (Gpa)
Flexural Strain at Break (%)
Tensile Strength (Mpa)
Tensile Modulus (Gpa)
Tensile strain at break <°'
PF-MX.GF60
Phenolic
1.83
185
17
41
3.1
124
12
1.29
65
13
0.9
PA66/XT-GF50
Zytel HTN
1.6
280
13
42
55
400
16.5
2.1
250
18
1.5
The Silverado's accessory drive configuration uses a stationary idler (Image 4.1-57),
increasing drive belt contact area with the alternator and creating clearance for the air
intake. This pulley made from steel could be injection molded to save mass like the
Nissan Frontier (Image 4.1-58). Glass-filled nylon, commonly used in idler applications,
was used in this analysis. The amount of plastic required was determined by reviewing
plastic idlers of similar size.
Image 4.1-57: Idler Pulley Silverado
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-58: Plastic Idler Pulley Nissan Frontier
(Source: http://www.haydenauto. com)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 305
4.1.7.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
Table 4.1-31 shows the mass and cost impact for the Accessory Drive Subsystem.
Substantial mass savings was gained by lightweighting pulleys. These lightweighting
technologies add minimal cost to the engine.
Table 4.1-31: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Accessory Drive Subsystem
g
£2.
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
09
09
09
09
09
09
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
05
99
Description
Accessory Drive Subsystem
Pulleys
Tensioners
Guides
Belts
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
1.732
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.732
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost Impact
M£"
* (2)
$0.73
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
0.727
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.42
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.42
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
23.82%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
20.94%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.07%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.07%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.8 Air Intake Subsystem
4.1.8.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table 4.1-32, the leading mass contributor to the Air Intake Subsystem is
the intake manifold followed by the air filter box.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 306
Table 4.1-32: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Air Intake Subsystem
CO
1
(D
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsj^tem
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Descriptor!
Air Intake Subsystem
Intake Manifold
Air Filter Box
Air Filters
Throttle Housing Assembly; including Supplies
Adapters: Flanges for Port Shut-off
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsyssm
Mass
•kg'
6.038
4.501
0.000
1.193
0.000
0.219
11.951
239.945
2454
4.98%
0.49%
4.1.8.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Air Intake Subsystem consists of a variety of components used to plumb air to the
engine (Image 4.1-59). Starting from left to right, the air comes in the lower air box,
passing thru the air filter into the upper air box and then through the intake duct to the
throttle body. The throttle body regulates the mass of air to the engine which is
distributed to the cylinders through the intake manifold. The intake duct features multiple
blow molded resonators that muffle engine noise.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 307
Image 4.1-59: Air Intake Subsystem Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
All system components are made of lightweight economical nylon with exception of the
aluminum throttle body and the ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) rubber
section of the intake duct. The intake manifold is a large, mass intensive plastic
component made up of three separate injection molded sections friction welding together.
The intake's long runner design delivers pressure pulses at low- to mid-range RPMs
increasing volumetric efficiency and torque.
4.1.8.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Industry trends for air intake lightweighting are focused on the intake manifold. This
component, originally made from cast iron and then aluminum, are now mostly plastic.
Plastic lends itself to complex and efficient dual runner designs and can even handle
pressures associated with charged air systems. Aftermarket suppliers offer carbon fiber
intake tubes. Due to cost, moderate density advantage, and resonator attachment points,
carbon fiber was not considered.
Plastic throttle bodies are offer cost and mass advantages. Plastic applications are now
emerging in vehicles such as the Mini Cooper (Image 4.1-60). Since bore distortion on
larger throttle body housings is a limitation of plastic, it was not recommended in this
application.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 308
Green EyeTl
Image 4.1-60 (Left): Throttle Body - Plastic Housing
(Source: www.greeneyeautoparts. com)
4.1.8.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
As shown in Table 4.1-33, all plastic components were reviewed for MuCell®
lightweighting. The intake manifold, weighing more than 6 kg, was a target for
lightweighting. The complexity of the intake manifold made it a poor candidate for
MuCell. The remaining plastic components are good applications for MuCell. The
aluminum throttle body housing was reviewed for a material change to plastic. Bore
distortion due to uneven thermal expansion was a concern, but paired with a compliant
throttle plate design it was considered possible.
Table 4.1-33: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Air Intake Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Intake Manifold
Air Box
Air Intake Duct
Air Box Mounting
Bracket
Throttle Body
Mass-Reduction Idea
3M Glass Bubbles
MuCell
MuCell
Metal to Plastic
Aluminum to Plastic
Estimated Impact
5% mass reduction
10% mass
reduction
10% mass
reduction
65% mass
reduction
35% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Equivalent mechanical properties
Reduced cycle time
Reduced cycle time
NVH concern
Bore distortion
4.1.8.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Ideas selected to lightweight the Air Intake Subsystem are listed in Table 4.1-34.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 309
Table 4.1-34: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Air Intake Subsystem
co
(V
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
CO
cr
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 310
addition of a MAPP compatibilizer, mechanical properties are nearly equal, with some
characteristics even improving. Table 4.1-35 provides a comparison of mechanical
properties for PA66 GF20, with and without Glass Bubbles (includes MAPP stabilizer).
Table 4.1-35: PA66 GF20 Mechanical Properties Comparison - Glass Bubbles
Component Formula 1
HomopolymerPP
Glass Fiber
IM30K-GB
IM16K-GB
MAPP
Final
Density
Tensile Strength {Mpa)
Tensile Elongation (%)
Tensile Modulus {Mpa}
Flexural Strength (Mpa)
Flexural Modulus (Mpa)
Izod impact Strength at RT (J/m)
20wt%GF
Wt% Vol%
80 92.07
20 7.93
100 100
1.054
76,9
3.61
3530
98.6
2730
6380
Formula 4
20wt% GF
5wt%iM16Kw/MAPP
Wt% Vol%
72 78.48
20 7.51
5 10.67
3 3.34
100 100
0.99
^^^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^^^^^^^^^^^•l
72
3.9
3520
105
2758
6000
Glass Bubbles selected for this application are hollow, thin wall unicellular spheres, 31
microns or less in diameter and .72 microns in wall thickness with a crush strength of
16.5 ksi (Image 4.1-62). Other known applications extend through the vehicle from
plastic body covers and molding to underbody seam and sealer.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 311
Image 4.1-62: 3M Glass Bubble iM16K
(Source: 3M image)
After consulting Trexel, MuCell was applied to all applicable intake components (Image
4.1-63). Due to the basic geometry of these components, material delivery webs could not
be thinned and a 9% mass reduction was applied. MuCell technology is currently used by
major OEMs such as Audi, Ford, BMW and Volkswagen, as introduced in section
4.3.1.2.
Image 4.1-63: Air Box Lower/Upper and Air Intake Duct MuCell - 9% Mass Savings
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 312
4.1.8.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
Table 4.1-36 shows the weight and cost savings for Air Intake lightweighting. The
changes made to the Air Intake Subsystem result in an overall cost savings.
Table 4.1-36: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Air Intake Subsystem
ss
£2.
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Description
Air Intake Subsystem
Intake Manifold
Air Filter Box
Air Filters
Throttle Housing Assembly; including Supplies
Adapters: Flanges for Port Shut-off
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
D
A
B
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(D
0.278
0.663
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.941
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost Impact
"$" (2)
-$0.81
$0.27
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-0.542
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$2.92
$0.40
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.58
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
4.60%
14.74%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.88%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.01%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.9 Fuel Induction Subsystem
4.1.9.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.1-37 details the mass breakdown for the Fuel Induction Subsystem. The most
significant subsystem mass contributor is the fuel rail. The fuel injection pump and
regulator were included in the Fuel System and therefore excluded from the Fuel
Induction Subsystem. At 1.12 kg, this subsystem had a minimum impact on the overall
Engine System mass.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 313
Table 4.1-37: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Induction Subsystem
t
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 314
4.1.9.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Fuel induction lightweighting trends include smaller more efficient fuel injectors and
lightweight plastic fuel rails. Plastic fuel rails need to be protected in the event of crash
and are often found on V engines. Compatibility issues arise with plastic fuel rails and
flex fuel. Image 4.1-65 shows a plastic 5.3L fuel rail for GM engines not equipped with
Flex Fuel. Due to tightened emissivity regulations and flex fuel requirements, plastic was
not considered for Silverado.
ik.
Image 4.1-65: Fuel Rail with Integrated Pulsation Dampener
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.9.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
No mass reduction concepts were generated for the Fuel Induction Subsystem.
4.1.10 Exhaust Subsystem
4.1.10.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.1-38, the only components included in the Exhaust Subsystem are
related to the exhaust manifolds. All other exhaust related components are included in the
Exhaust System.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 315
Table 4.1-38: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Exhaust Subsystem
CO
1
(D
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsj^tem
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
| Sub- Subs j^tem
00
01
04
05
06
07
08
99
Description
Exhaust Subsystem
Exhaust Manifold
Collector Pipes
Catalysts
Particle Filters
Silencers (Mufflers)
Oxygen Sensors
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsys:em
Mass
]£
12.166
0.000
0.000
:.:::
0.000
0.000
0000
12.166
239.945
2454
5.07%
0.50%
4.1.10.2 Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
Image 4.1-66 shows the Silverado exhaust manifolds with heat shields and gaskets. Cast
iron exhaust manifold, as found on the Silverado, are the most common type of exhaust
found on cars and trucks. Low cost, sound absorption, and heat insulating are among the
advantages of cast iron. The downside to cast iron is its considerable mass as compared
with alternatives.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 316
Image 4.1-66: Exhaust Subsystem Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.10.3 Mass reduction Industry Trends
Manifold catalysts (Image 4.1-67), developed for improved light off times and reduced
emissions, are lighter than a traditional cast iron manifolds. Either mandrel bent tube or
stamped or welded (Image 4.1-68) thinner wall sections provide a mass advantage over
cast iron. Fabricated manifolds with integrated catalyst are common for quick light off
and improved emissions.
Image 4.1-67: (Left) Fabricated V8 Exhaust Manifold (LS7 Corvette)
(Source: http://www.ebay.com)
Image 4.1-68: (Right) Fabricated Exhaust Manifold
(Source: http.V/www.ddperformanceresearch. com)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 317
4.1.10.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
As shown in Table 4.1-39, lightweighting options considered for the exhaust manifolds
were changing to a steel fabricated manifold and integrated exhaust manifold as shown in
Image 4.1-69. Integrated exhaust manifold (IBM) offers a substantial mass savings as
well as cost savings, however combustion imbalance with V8 firing order prohibits this
technology. IBM Production examples include GM 3.6L LFX, Honda 2.4L, and Ford
1.5L EcoBoost.
,
Image 4.1-69 (Right): Integrated Exhaust Manifold
(Source: http://green, autoblog. com)
Table 4.1-39: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Exhaust Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Exhaust Manifold
Exhaust Manifold
Mass-Reduction Idea
Solid cast to tubular
weldment
Integrate into cylinder
head
Estimated Impact
45% mass
reduction
45% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Increased heat radiation
not suitable for airflow separation
requirement with V8 firing order
4.1.10.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Ideas selected to lightweight the Exhaust Subsystem are listed in Table 4.1-40.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 318
Table 4.1-40: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Exhaust Subsystem
(f>
*<
23-
0>
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
04
05
06
07
08
99
Description
Exhaust Subsystem
Exhaust Manifold
Collector Pipes
Catalysts
Particle Filters
Silencers (Mufflers)
Oxygen Sensors
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
dual wall fabricated manifold
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
The Silverado's exhaust manifolds (Image 4.1-70) were lightweighted by replacing the
cast iron components with a stainless steel fabricated assembly. Tenneco a supplier of
fabricated manifolds designed a direct replacement manifold for the Chevrolet Silverado.
This concept has been prototyped (Image 4.1-76). The inner wall (Image 4.1-77) being
1mm thick and the outer wall (Image 4.1-78) 1.5mm thick. Both austenitic and ferritic
grades of stainless steel are used in fabricated manifolds. Manufacturing processes
include hydroforming, stamping, welding, and brazing. Production examples of
fabricated manifolds include the Toyota Avensis 2.0-R4 4V and LS7 Corvette. Fabricated
manifolds require heat shielding, (http://wardsauto.com/ar/tenneco _manifold_destiny_110923)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 319
Image 4.1-70: Silverado Cylinder Head and Exhaust Manifold
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-76: Silverado Fabricated Exhaust Manifold Concept Prototype
(Source: Tenneco)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 320
Image 4.1-77: Silverado Fabricated Exhaust Manifold Concept (Inner Construction)
(Source: Tenneco)
Image 4.1-78: Silverado Fabricated Exhaust Manifold Concept (Inner Construction)
(Source: Tenneco)
4.1.10.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
Table 4.1-41 shows the mass and cost impact for the Exhaust Subsystem. Replacing cast
iron exhaust manifolds with fabricated manifolds represented the largest single mass
reduction on the engine. The cast iron manifold weight for driver and passenger sides are
5.35kg and 5.60kg respectively. Tenneco's fabricated manifolds, including downpipe
flange, weigh 3.80 and 4.00 kg. Fabricated manifold costs used in this study were
surrogate cost developed for similar manifolds and did not come from Tenneco.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 321
Table 4.1-41: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust Subsystem
CO
CO
oT
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
04
05
06
07
08
99
Description
Exhaust Subsystem
Exhaust Manifold
Collector Pipes
Catalysts
Particle Filters
Silencers (Mufflers)
Oxygen Sensors
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
X
X
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"k9" d)
3.148
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.148
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost Impact
IIQII
* (2)
-$20.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-20.000
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
-$6.35
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$6.35
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
25.88%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
25.88%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.13%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.13%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.11 Lubrication Subsystem
4.1.11.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.1-42, the largest contributor to the Lubrication Subsystem is the oil
pan. Included within the Miscellaneous Sub-subsystem is the dipstick assembly.
Table 4.1-42: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Lubrication Subsystem
00
%
(D
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsj^tem
13
13
13
13
13
13
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
05
06
99
Description
Lubrication Subsystem
Oil Pans (Oil Sump)
Oil Pumps
Pressure Regulators
Oil Filter
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
;utiyrs~
Mass
]£
7.776
2.061
0.000
0.424
0.236
10.547
239.945
2454
4.40%
0.43%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 322
4.1.11.2 Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado oil pump is a generated rotor ("gerotor") design. The Inner rotor is driven
on center with the crankshaft while the outer rotor rotates off center in a housing bolted to
the front of the engine block. The oil pump houses the pressure regulator. A series of
baffle plates, one mounted in the lower sump and one mounted under the crankshaft,
reduce oil turbulence. The oil pan is a diecast aluminum component and provides a
stiffening element to the engine block assembly. Other components include the oil pick-
up, dip stick assembly, and oil filter neck/cap (Image 4.1-71).
<
Image 4.1-71: Lubrication Subsystem Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.11.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Lightweighting trends for lubrication systems are metal-to-plastic applications. Common
components include oil pans, baffle plates, and dip stick cases. Plastic presents the best
advantage when multiple components can be integrated into one, such as the oil filter
mount and the oil pan. Another lightweighting approach is to integrate the oil pump
housing into the front cover.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 323
4.1.11.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.1-43 summarizes ideas considered for the Lubrication Subsystem. Plastic was
considered for the oil pan but was eliminated as it is a structural member of the engine.
Silverado's oil pump cover is a steel plate that could be made from aluminum to save
mass. Without specification and operating parameters this change was considered a risk
due to the differences in wear between steel and aluminum. The oil filter was reviewed
for mass savings by changing to a replaceable element with plastic housing. Detailed
comparison reviled the change is mass neutral however the replaceable element type is
more environmentally friendly. Some engine architectures support using a breather
passage as a dipstick tube, eliminating that component. The Silverado's engine design
does not permit this dual function.
Austrian supplier Schneegans Silicon GmbH supplies a plastic dip stick tube for BMW's
2L diesel engine (Image 4.1-72). Water-injection technology and DuPont™ Zytel® nylon
produce a lightweight economical alternative to steel. Plastic also allows easy integration
of surrounding components. The Silverado dip stick tube is located in close proximity to
the exhaust system making this technology incompatible with the current architecture.
Image 4.1-72: Plastic Dip Stick Tube (BMW 2L Diesel)
(Source: http://plastics, dupont. com)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 324
Table 4.1-43: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Lubrication Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Oil Pan
Oil Pan
Crank Cover Baffle
Plate
Oil Pan Gasket
Oil Pick-up Tube
Oil Pump Cover
Oil Filter
Dip Stick Tube
Dip Stick Tube
Mass-Reduction Idea
Aluminum to Plastic
Aluminum to Magnesium
Steel to Plastic
Aluminum to Rubber inlay
Steel to Plastic
Steel to Aluminum
Standard to replaceable
paper element
integrate into breather
passage
Steel to Plastic
Estimated Impact
30% mass
reduction
25% mass
reduction
70% mass
reduction
60% mass
reduction
65% mass
reduction
55% mass
reduction
0% mass reduction
0% mass reduction
60% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Structural member
Reduced stiffness
Reduced stiffness
Sealing risk
Gas assist molding required
Aluminum wear surface
Mass neutral
Breather passages not suitable housing
for dipstick
Reduced durability /Heat
4.1.11.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.1-44 summarizes the Ideas Implemented for the Lubrication Subsystem.
Table 4.1-44: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Lubrication Subsystem
V)
•-<
£
CD
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
13
13
13
13
13
13
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
05
06
99
Description
Lubrication Subsystem
Oil Pans (Oil Sump)
Oil Pumps
Pressure Regulators
Oil Filter
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Oil Pan - Aluminum to Magnesium
Windage Trays - Steel to Plastic
Oil Pick Up Tube - Steel to Plastic
N/A
N/A
Dip Stick Tube - Stamped Steel to Plastic
Magnesium was selected as a lightweighting option for the Silverado structural oil pan
(Image 4.1-73). The density advantage of magnesium on this large casting can save
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 325
significant mass. Magnesium's lower stiffness would require structural sections of the
pan to be thickened. The relationship between section thickness and strength is
exponential, quickly regaining lost stiffness. Clearance for larger section thickness was
reviewed and does not appear to be an issue on the Silverado. Specific changes to
structural elements needed to determine oil pan mass require full design details and FEA
tools. Using surrogate data from other aluminum to magnesium changes on components
like transmission housings indicates 25% mass reduction is achievable. The Nissan GTR
is an example of a structural magnesium oil pan (Image 4.1-74). Specialized fasteners
required for use with magnesium were included in this cost build up.
Image 4.1-73 (Left): Aluminum Oil Pan Silverado
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-74 (Right): Magnesium Oil Pan Nissan GTR
(Source: http://victorianissannews. com)
Stamped steel oil baffle plates are used to reduce turbulence and fluid restriction of
moving parts. Preventing unintended grabbing of pan oil helps keep the oil pick-up
submerged, particularly at high RPM. These plates, otherwise known as windage trays
(Image 4.1-75), can be made from light-weight plastic. The 2011 Ford Mustang 5.0L
features a plastic windage tray (Image 4.1-76). Plastic mass was estimated by assuming
an average 3.00 mm thickness.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 326
Image 4.1-75 (Left): Silverado Windage Tray
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-76 (Right): Ford 5.0L Windage Tray
(Source: http://www.drivingenthusiast.net)
The Silverado's oil pick-up (Image 4.1-77) consists of a steel tube with welded brackets.
Oil pick-up is a good application for plastic. Production examples include the Ford Focus
(Image 4.1-78) and eight-cylinder, 4.0L Jaguar. Plastic component mass was estimated
by doubling the metal components volume and applying the density of plastic. Plastic
requires component redesign.
Image 4.1-77 (Left): Silverado Oil Pick-Up Tube
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-78 (Right): Focus Oil Pick-up Tube
(Source: http://www. oreillyauto. com.)
4.1.11.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
As seen in Table 4.1-45, the largest mass saving was found in the Oil Pans Sub-
subsystem, which includes the oil pan baffle plate. Results for the dip stick tube are listed
in the Miscellaneous Sub-subsystem. Lightweighting the Lubrication Subsystem
increases engine cost.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 327
Table 4.1-45: Mass reduction and Cost Impact for Lubrication Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
fJ"J
f
(D
01
01
"pi"
01
01
01
Subsystem
13
13
"13"
13
13
13
Sub- Subsystem
DO
01
02
05
06
99
Descriptor
Lubrication Subsystem
ON.Pans^tOi^Sumpj
Oil Pumps
Pressure Regulators
Oil Filter
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
SS 8"
D
A
D
Esimated
Mass
Reducion
•kg' {1>
2.580
0.429
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.009
(Decrease)
t=:~s:sd
Cos Impac
'$' is,
* {•£)
-$11.29
$O4
$0.00
SO. 00
$0.00
-11.242
(Increase}
Average
CQSS
Kilogram
S/kg
-$4.37
sbl'b
50.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$3.74
(Increase)
Sub- Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Redueson
•%•
33.18%
""20"82%""
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
28.53%
Vehicle
Mass
Reducson
•%•
0.11%
0"02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
(1} "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.12 Cooling Subsystem
4.1.12.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.1-46 summarizes the mass breakdown for the Cooling Subsystem. The largest
mass contributor is the radiator. Included in the Heat Exchanger Sub-subsystem is the
cooling fan assembly and oil cooler line set.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 328
Table 4.1-46: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cooling Subsystem
CO
f
CD
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
04
05
06
99
Description
Cooling Subsystem
Water Pumps
Thermostat Housings
Heat Exchangers
Pressure Regulators
Expansion Tanks
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsys:em
Mass
]£
4.6S3
0.31 E
14.230
0.000
1.219
3.875
24.322
239.945
2454
10.14%
0.99%
4.1.12.2 Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado radiator (Image 4.1-79) uses a standard aluminum heat transfer element
with plastic end caps on each side. The water pump is aluminum and integrates
thermostat mounting. The water pump pulley is steel and the thermostat housing is
aluminum.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 329
Image 4.1-79: Silverado Cooling Subsystem
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.12.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Lightweighting trends for the Cooling System include the use of plastic water pump
housings, plastic water pump impellers, and plastic thermostat housings. Coolant transfer
tubes are now being manufactured from plastic. Water pump impeller housings typically
constructed in aluminum are now being manufactured from plastic (Image 4.1-80).
Possessing lighter weight and lower cost, these housings are an attractive alternative to
metal. Transmission heat exchangers assembled in the radiator are now being made from
lightweight aluminum (Image 4.1-81) instead of copper alloy (Image 4.1-82) and can
save 50% mass.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 330
Image 4.1-80: Water Pump Impeller Housing - Plastic
(Source: new.minimania.com)
Image 4.1-81 (Left): Transmission Heat Transfer Element - Copper Alloy
Image 4.1-82 (Right): Transmission Heat Transfer Element - Aluminum Alloy
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.12.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Lightweighting ideas considered for the Cooling System are summarized in Table
4.1-47.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 331
Table 4.1-47: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Cooling Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Water Pump
Water Pump
Water Pump
Water Pump Impeller
Thermostat Housing
Cooling Fan Housing
Cooling Fan Blades
External Coolant Lines
Radiator
Mass-Reduction Idea
Aluminum to Plastic
Aluminum to two piece
Aluminum and Plastic
Mechanical to electric
Steel to Plastic
Aluminum to Plastic
MuCell
MuCell
Steel to Plastic
Downsize
Estimated Impact
35% mass
reduction
20% mass
reduction
55% mass
reduction
55% mass
reduction
50% mass
reduction
1 5% mass
reduction
7% mass reduction
0% mass reduction
1 5% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Belt load exceeds material stiffness
Sealing and durability concerns
substantial cost, improved efficiency
Established plastic application
Established plastic application
Established MuCell application, section
reductions possible.
Potential balancing issue
No mass savings, reduced durability
Application specific design could effect
cost
The Silverado's water pump is a mass intensive component and was the focus of this
subsystem. The water pump function of flowing coolant, housing the impellar, and
housing the thermostat can be facilitated by plastic. The loads imposed on the housing
from the drive belt were a concern for plastic and theirfore a two piece design was
considered. Aluminum could be used for the structual element and plastic to house the
plumbing and thermostat. In addition to scalability concerns, no examples of such a
concept could be found and a major design effort would be required for validation.
Integration of a drive motor rather than a drive belt reduces the structural demand seen by
the waterpump housing. Plastic coolant lines have been successful in replacing EPDM in
select applications. No applications for plastic cooling lines were identified on the
Silverado.
4.1.12.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.1-48 summarizes lightweighting ideas selected for the Cooling Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 332
Table 4.1-48: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Cooling Subsystem
v>
1
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
04
05
06
99
Description
Cooling Subsystem
Water Pumps
Thermostat Housings
Heat Exchangers
Pressure Regulators
Expansion Tanks
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Water Pump - Mechanical to Electric
N/A
Radiator - Downsize for specific application
Fan Shroud/Fan Blades - MuCell
N/A
N/A
N/A
Electric water pumps can be found on a variety of vehicles. BMW's 328, 528, and X3/5
use a Pierburg electric water pump (EWP) for primary engine cooling rather than a
traditional belt-driven pump (Image 4.1-83). Other applications include after-run pumps
associated with turbo charging and battery cooling systems such as the Chevrolet Volt. At
2.0 kg, a Pierburg CWA400 saves significant mass over Silverado's 4.7 kg belt driven
pump. EWPs have been a popular SBC aftermarket upgrade for years with the key
advantage of freeing crankshaft power (Image 4.1-84).
Image 4.1-83 (Left): Electric Water Pump Pierburg CWA 400
(Source: www.pressebox.com)
Image 4.1-84 (Right): Small Block Chevrolet Electric Water Pump - Preform
(Source: paceperformance. com)
Davies Craig is an aftermarket supplier of electric water pumps and offers a variety of
pump sizes. Marketed for primary cooling of high output V8 engines, Davies Craig
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 333
recommends its EWP150. This is a ISOliter per hour pump currently offered in an
aluminum offered with aluminum housing and total pump weight of 1.815 kg. As with
their EWP115 pump Davies Craig thinks the EWP150 could also utilize a lightweight
plastic housing reducing pump weight to 1.515 kg. Davies is developing a brushless
alternative to this permanent magnet motored pump, increasing life from 3,000 hours to
the production automotive 9,000 hour standard. With plastic housing this pump saves and
estimated 3.2 kg over base Silverado (Image 4.1-85). Mass savings and cost calculation
includes; Nylon housed brushless EWP150 concept, isolator mount, mount bracket,
controls/wiring, additional alternator capacity, hose fittings, and map thermostat. As part
of this study a EWP115 was purchased and reviewed for cost (Image 4.1-86). Results
were scaled up to the 150 liter EWP150 and brushless motor costs were used. Electric
water pump applications can be optimized by designing low pressure drop systems
reducing pump requirements. Davies Craig estimates that freeing up crankshaft power
saves up to 10 kW and an estimated 3.5-10% fuel savings. Due to the current high costs
of electric water pumps this technology is not feasible for lightweighting alone; however,
when combined with efficiency improvements this technology will likely continue to
gain market share.
Image 4.1-85 (Left): Silverado Water Pump and Pulley
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.1-86 (Right): Davies Craig EWP115
(Source: https://merlinmotorsport, co. uk)
Like many components found on Silverado, the radiator is shared by other vehicle
applications such as Yukon Denali XL, Escalade, and Suburban. These vehicles feature
6.0L engines with more output than Silverado and increased curb weight. A radiator
specifically built for the Silverado application could be made smaller. Using the
displacement difference of 10% between the 5.3L and 6.0L and estimated 1.1 kg of
radiator and fluid mass could be saved.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 334
Some sections of the fan shroud (Image 4.1-87) are designed for material flow. Due to
the improved flow characteristics of MuCell, these sections can be thinned to their
structural requirement making the fan shroud a good candidate for MuCell and savings of
15% mass. The radiator fans were also applied with MuCell, which may require
balancing. MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like, Audi, Ford, BMW,
and Volkswagen as introduced in Section 4.3.1.
Image 4.1-87 Fan Shroud: MuCell 15% Mass Savings; Fan Blades: MuCell 7% Mass Savings)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.12.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
As seen in Table 4.1-49, changes made to the Cooling Subsystem resulted in a significant
cost penalty. As stated in the section above when evaluating the feasibility of electric
water pumps, the value of improved efficiency must be considered. Cost estimation for
the electric water pump is based on manufacturing costs without any new technology
premiums. Facilitating the electric water pump is a MAP thermostat outweighing
Silverado's standard thermostat and housing. The additional cost of the MAP thermostat
is included in the Water Pump Sub-subsystem. MuCell and radiator downsizing both
reduced cost. Cost penalties for a radiator custom to Silverado were not considered in the
downsizing cost calculation.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 335
Table 4.1-49: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Cooling Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
CO
•g
(D
3
•0-j-
01
01
01
01
01
"oT
g
CT
01
1
14
14
14
14
14
14
14"
Sub- Subsystem
"00
01
02
04
05
06
"99"
Description
Cooling Subsystem
Water Pumps
Thermostat Housings
Heat Exchangers
Pressure Regulators
Expansion Tanks
Misc.
fc
Idea
Level
See~
X
A
A
A
X
et Value of Mass Reduction Idea
E::~-=:=d
Mass
Reduction
'kg' (i)
2.431
-0.229
1.059
0.000
0.000
0".053
3.314
(Decrease)
E=:"=:ed
Cost Impact
T(2)
-$94.12
$0.00
$2.16
$0.00
$0.00
-$"b"."io
-92.063
(Increase)
Average
cos-;
Klogram
S/kg
-$38.71
SO 00
$2.04
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$27.78
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducfon
'%'
51.91%
-72.77%
7.45%
0.00%
0.00%
1.37%
13.63%
VehKte
fv' = ;;
ReducBn
•%•
0.10%
-0.01%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.14%
(1| "*•" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "-«-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.13 Induction Air Charging Subsystem
Silverado's 5.3L engine is naturally aspirated with no induction air charging system.
4.1.14 Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
No lightweighting solutions were identified in the Silverado EGR Subsystem.
4.1.15 Breather Subsystem
4.1.15.1 Subsystem Content Overview
No lightweighting solutions were identified on the Silverado Breather Subsystem.
4.1.16 Engine Management, Engine Electronic, and Electrical Subsystem
4.1.16.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.1-50, Engine Electrical Sub-subsystems includes the ignition coils
and brackets making up a majority of the subsystem mass. The engine wiring harness is
included in System 18: Electrical Distribution and Electrical Control.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 336
Table 4.1-50: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Engine Management, Engine Electronic, and
Electrical Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 337
Image 4.1-88: Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.1.16.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The industry trend for lightweighting engine electronics is to use plastic for mounting
whenever possible. Integrating mounting features on existing plastic components or
designing plastic support brackets like the Silverado ECM bracket (Image 4.1-89).
4.1.16.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
As shown in Table 4.1-51, the ECU Bracket Assembly and Spark Coil were considered
for mass reduction.
Table 4.1-51: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Engine Management,
Electronic Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Coil Bracket
Mass-Reduction Idea
Steel to Plastic and
integrated into valve cover
Estimated Impact
75% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
NVH concern
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 338
4.1.16.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.1-52 summarizes the ideas selected for the Engine Management, Engine
Electronic, Electrical Subsystem.
Table 4.1-52: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Engine Management, Electronic Subsystem
0>
*<
a
n>
3
01
01
01
01
01
C/3
fe-
rn
cd
3
60
60
RO
60
60
C/5
c
O>
ro
i
3
00
01
0^
03
99
Description
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Engine Management, Engine Electronic, Electrical Subsystem
Spark Plugs, Glow Plugs
Engine Management Systems,
Engine Electronic Systems
Engine Electrical Systems
(including Wiring Harnesses, Earth
Straps, Ignition Harness, Coils,
Sockets)
Misc.
N/A
N/A
Coil Bracket - Integrated into valve cover
N/A
Silverado's ignition coils are mounted to a stamped steel bracket (Image 4.1-89), which
then mounts to the valve cover. A weight saving alternative would be to integrate coil
mounting features into the valve cover, creating a single plastic component. Valve covers
are a proven application for plastic. Glass reinforced nylon was selected to achieve the
strength required to support the mass intensive ignition coils. In addition, to ensure
durability and meet NVH requirements special design consideration would be required to
properly support the mass of the coils. An example of an integrated coil mount valve
cover is the 2014LT1 (Image 4.1-90).
Image 4.1-89: Silverado Coil Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 339
Image 4.1-90: 2014LT1 Integrated Coil Mount Valve Cover
(Source: http://wot.motortrend.com)
4.1.16.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
As seen in Table 4.1-53, a metal-to-plastic integration applied to the coil bracket saves
both mass and cost.
Table 4.1-53: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Breather Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
1
3
01
01
01
01
01
CO
OI
I
60"
60
60
60
60
CO
cr
c
cr
•aj
CD
3
oo'
01
02
05
06
Descnpfon
Engine Management, Engine Electronic, EJectr
Spark Plugs, Glow Plugs
Engine Management Systems, Engine
Electronic Systems
Engine Electrical Systems (including Wiring
Harnesses. Earth Straps. Ignition Harness.
Coils. Sockets)
Misc.
1
Idea
Level
Setea
leal Su
A
A
et Value of Mass Reduction Idea
C-. =:-!
Mass
Reducxn
'Kg'
isystem
0.000
0.000
0.886
0.000
0.886
(Decrease)
Essna:ed
Cost Impact
$6.00
$0.00
$1.97
$0.00
1.973
(Decrease)
Average
Cos:'
Klogram
S/kg
$0.00
$0.00
$2.23
$0.00
$2.23
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub- Subs
Mass
ReducSon
0.00%
0.00%
21.82%
0.00%
15.63%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
•%'
0.00%
0.00%
0.04%
0.00%
0.04%
(1) "-•-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
|2) °V* = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.17 Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
4.1.17.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.1-54 summarizes the mass breakdown for the Silverado engine accessories. The
top mass contributors include the AC compressor and the alternator.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 340
Table 4.1-54: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Accessory Subsystem
ca
"g
o>
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
| Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
10
99
Descriptor!
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
Starter Motors
Alternators
Power Steering Pumps
Vacuum Pumps
Air Conditioning Compressors
Hydraulic Pumps
Ventilator
Other Accessories
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Sybsys$em&
Sub-
subsyssm
Mass
•KB*
3.265
6.699
:.:::
0.000
6.244
0.000
0.000
:.:::
3.685
19.893
239.945
2454
8.29%
0.81%
4.1.17.2 Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado Accessory Subsystem consists of the alternator, starter, AC compressor,
AC bracket, and accessory bracket (Image 4.1-91).
Image 4.1-91: Accessory Subsystem Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 341
4.1.17.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The trend for engine accessories is to remove them from the belt drive. Electrically
driven devices can be powered to match accessory requirements savings power. In some
cases, electrically driven systems can be lighter weight than standard belt driven
accessories.
4.1.17.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.1-55 summarizes concepts considered for accessory lightweighting.
Table 4.1-55: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for Accessory Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Power Steering Pump
Air Cond. Bracket
Accessory Bracket
Accessory Bracket
Accessory Bracket
Mass-Reduction Idea
Cast Iron to Aluminum
Aluminum to Magnesium
Aluminum to Magnesium
Reduce size for Electric
Power Steering
Reduce size for EPS and
Aluminum to Magnesium
Estimated Impact
35% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
30% mass
reduction
40% mass
reduction
55% mass
reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Improved heat dissipation
Coated fasteners required
Coated fasteners required
Permits reduction in belt size and
elimination of secondary AC belt
Coated fasteners required
The power steering pump presents opportunity for significant mass savings by making
the housing forged aluminum rather than cast iron. Electric power steering represents the
future of steering systems. It was selected over hydraulic, eliminating this idea.
Eliminating the hydraulic power steering pump enabled the elimination of the mounting
feature from the accessory drive bracket which also facilitates alternator mounting.
4.1.17.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
As seen in Table 4.1-56, the accessory bracket and AC compressor mounting bracket
were selected for lightweighting.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 342
Table 4.1-56: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Accessory Subsystem
co
*<
|
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Subsystem
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
10
99
Description
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator, etc.)
Starter Motors
Alternators
Power Steering Pumps
Vacuum Pumps
Air Conditioning Compressors
Hydraulic Pumps
Ventilator
Other Accessories
Misc.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Compressor Bracket - Aluminum to Magnesium
N/A
N/A
N/A
Accessory Bracket - remove PS mount
Accessory Bracket - Aluminum to Magnesium
The accessory mounting bracket found on Silverado (Image 4.1-92) was shortened for
elimination of the hydraulic power steering pump (Image 4.1-93). This smaller bracket
was also changed to magnesium along with the AC compressor bracket. Diecast
magnesium brackets are in production (Image 4.1-94 and Image 4.1-95) and easily
manufactured.
Image 4.1-92 (Left): [Base Technology] Accessory Bracket
Image 4.1-93 (Right): [New Technology] Accessory Bracket w/o PS
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 343
Image 4.1-94 (Left): [Base Technology] AC Comp Bracket
(Source: slidegood.com)
Image 4.1-95 (Right): [New Technology] Steering Column Bracket
(Source: Meridian)
4.1.17.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
Table 4.1-57 shows there is a cost increase for changing the AC Bracket material to
magnesium. Cost for magnesium compatible fasteners was included.
Table 4.1-57: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Accessory Subsystem
(See Appendix for Additional Cost Detail)
CO
I
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 344
4.1.18 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
4.1.18.1
Subsystem Content Overview
Vehicle acceleration relates to vehicle mass. A lighter Silverado requires less power to
achieve equal acceleration. The intent of investigating secondary mass savings is to
quantify how much engine mass could be further reduced by reducing the vehicle mass.
Engine mass could also be reduced by performance enhancements like turbo charging. A
turbo charged V6 is capable of producing the same power as Silverado's V8 and could
save additional mass. Since performance enhancements like charge air systems, variable
valve control, dual runner intakes, and others have been previously researched they were
not evaluated in this investigation.
Silverado's 5.3L naturally aspirated engine produces 315 Hp resulting in 59.4 Hp/Liter.
This output/liter was used to size the lightened Silverado engine.
To calculate the downsized power requirement (Table 4.1-58), base Silverado's gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) was ratioed with a 20% curb weight reduction resulting in
a 7% reduction in power. Maintaining the same power output per liter as the 5.3L LC9,
results in a downsize displacement of 4.9 liters.
Table 4.1-58: Downsized Engine Power Requirement Calculation
ENGINE SIZING
Silverado Curb Weight Reduction 20%
Lightened Curb Weight (kgs} 1963
Lightened Weight (GCWR) 6313
Chevy Silverado Curb Weight (kgs) 2454"
Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) 6804"
Power Reduction Factor 0.928
5.3L Power (kW @5200) 235
5.3L Torque (N*m @4000) 454
Reduced-Weight Power (kW) 218
Reduced-Weight Torque (N*m) 421
Vortech 5.3L Displacement (L) 5.3
Downsized Displacement (L) 4.9
Displacement-driven engine components such as pistons, connecting rods, and engine
block are directly sized by engine displacement. For these components downsized masses
were estimated based on a 4.9L engine (Table 4.1-59). Secondary mass savings were
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 345
derived from reduced component masses previously calculated for lightweighting
technologies. All other components like those associated with the accessory and fasteners
were not affected and masses unchanged. The result is 7.6 kg of additional mass savings
based on downsizing.
Table 4.1-59: Silverado Engine Downsizing Mass Savings by Component and Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Component
Engine Mounts
Crankshaft
Connecting Rod
Piston
Engine Block
Cylinder Head length
Cylinder Head width
Valve Cover
Camshaft
Harmonic Balancer
Oil Pan
Windage Plate
Radiator
Total (kg)
New
Mass
(kg)
4.963
22.973
3.584
3.392
43.695
22.618
21 .968
1.120
3.491
3.698
3.949
0.369
5.684
141.504
Downsizing Approach
Power Reduction
Power Reduction
Power Reduction
Area Reduction
Power Reduction
Block Length Reduction
Deck Width Reduction
Block Length Reduction
Block Length Reduction
Power Reduction
Block Length Reduction
Block Length Reduction
Power Reduction
%
Reduction
7.0%
7.0%
7.0%
7.3%
7.0%
2.9%
2.4%
3.0%
2.9%
7.0%
2.6%
3.1%
7.0%
Length
Reduction
(mm)
14.4
3.6
14.4
14.4
14.4
14.4
Component
Length
(mm)
500
150
480
500
560
470
Compounded
Mass Savings
(kg)
0.650
0.526
0.034
0.100
0.259
0.101
0.011
0.399
7.605
Material savings for compounded components was totaled to estimate the cost impact of
downsizing. Labor and burden costs were considered unchanged.
Table 4.1-60 details mass and cost impact of compounding. These figures are based on
downsizing the already lightweighted concept as outlined in previous sections. The table
also includes data for new technology which saved 23.8kg. The total mass reduction
achieved for the Engine System including compounding is 31.8 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 346
Table 4.1-60: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Engine System Secondary Mass Savings
CO
•-=;
UJ_
(O
gj
01
01
"01"
01
01
of
"01"
01
"b"i"
01
01
01
01
01
IT
01
01
01
Subsystem
"do"
02
03
..........
05"
06
07
"ds"
09"
"id"
11
12
13
'14"
15
"16"
17
60
70
Sub-Subsystem
bb"
00
00
Ob"
"do
00
"do"
bb"
"do
bb"
00
00
00
bb"
00
bb"
00
00
00
Description
Engine System
Engine Frames. Mounting, and Brackets
Subsystem
Crank Drive Subsystem
Counter Balance Subsystem
Cylinder Bloc. ; Su-syste™
Cylinder Head Subsystem
Valvetrain Subsystem
Timing Driye Subsystem
Accessor,1 Dnve Subsystem
Air Intake Suisyste--
Fuel Induction Subsystem
Exhaust Subsystem
Lubrication Subsystem
Ccclmq Sucsyste"!
Induction Air ChaiCjintj 8u;.3yste "
Exhaust Gas Re-circulation Subsystem
Breather Sucsystem
Engine Management, Engine Electronic. Electrical
Subsystem
Accessory Subsystems (Start Motor, Generator,
etc.)
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,;•:•
1.10
2.38
0.00
S'l'd
116
b"."i'9"2
0.415
173"
0.941
b.bb
3.15
3.01
3T31
0.00
o'bd
0.00
0.386
2.23
23.8
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ;-;.
0.348
2.11
0.00
3.07
1.21
0-126
0.00
0.325
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.112
b"457
0.00
bib
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.0
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
145
4.49
0.00
6.36"
2.37
blTs
0.415
2-06
0.941
bib
3.43
3.12
3J7"
0.00
bob
0.00
0.886
2.23
31.8
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"
$0.58
$4.10
$0.00
$9"35
$3.69
$0-45
$0.00
iol'd
$0.00
sold
$0.97
$0.55
$2l'i
ibid
ibid
ibid
$0.00
$0-00
$21.81
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"*' B
$0.57
$7.05
$0.00
"$id'.i5"
$9.75
$0-50
42.44
$0-73
40.54
$0.00
419.03
410.69
"489:95
$0.00
'""ibid
$0.00
$197
40.89
-$92.83
(increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$./kg"
$0.39
$157
$0.00
$160
$4.11
$157"'
45.88
$0-35
40.58
$0.00
45.56
-$3.42
"423:85
$0.00
i'dl'b
$0.00
$2.23
40.40
-$2.92
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.1%
0.2%
0.0%
b".3%
0.1%
b".'b"%
0.0%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0%
0.0%
b"."b'%
0.0%
0.0%
01%
1.30%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.1.19 Engine System Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Engine System and for the baseline and compounded
Engine System is provided in Figure 4.1-2. The "Steel & Iron" content category was
reduced by more than 11%, while "Plastic" increased by 3.2%. Magnesium content
increased from 0% to 4.1%. Aluminum content remained unchanged.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 347
Baseline Engine System
Total Engine System
Engine System Material
Analysis
• • 1
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 348
4.2 Transmission
The Chevrolet Silverado 6L80E transmission package, as shown in Image 4.2-1, is a six-
speed automatic transmission built by General Motors at its Toledo Transmission Plant
(TTO). Introduced in late 2005, it is very similar in design to the smaller 6L45/6L50,
produced at GM Powertrain in Strasbourg, France. It features clutch-to-clutch shifting,
eliminating the one-way clutches used on older transmission designs. Some weight-
reduction concepts were used when it was designed, but durability and reliability were
foremost in the design process.
GM has announced that TTO will produce a new eight-speed transmission at its facility.
This new GM-designed transmission will be used in several models by the end of 2016,
the automaker has said. This is not the TL80 eight-speed automatic that will be used in
the redesigned 2014 Cadillac CTS, Aisin will supply that transmission. GM is spending
$55.7 million on its transmission plant in Toledo, and $29.4 million on its casting plant in
Bedford, Ind., for its new eight-speed transmission. It is our understanding that this new
transmission is an upgrade of the 6L80 traditional style for use in the pickup, SUV trucks,
and Corvette presumed to be available for 2014. You would assume that during the
design of this new system that some of today's light weighting techniques will prevail
through the project.
The joint venture GM has entered into with Ford has promised to bring a 9- and 10-speed
to the marketplace. The intention of this project is to develop a nine-speed transmission
for front-wheel drive vehicles and a more robust 10 speed for rear wheel drive pickup
trucks and SUVs. The targeted launch date for these was to be 2016, but the idea of
whether all this transmission development can be accomplished in this timeframe (even
with both companies putting their resources together) is considerable.
Understanding that the package envelops for these transmission is not getting bigger and
that everyday weight restrictions are driven into every system design groups arena the
new materials and strength increasing processes that have been suggested in the Silverado
6 speed will be considered and embraced.
As shown in Table 4.2-lError! Reference source not found., there are key areas in the
unit for mass reduction opportunities.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 349
A
Image 4.2-1: General Motors 6L80e Automatic Transmission
(Source: Queensland.com)
Table 4.2-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Transmission System
U)
•"<
S2-
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 350
Transmission System
Material Analysis
60.4%
13.5%
20.2%
0.0%
0,0%
0.5%
4.8%
0.0%
0.7%
37.748
19.592
29.301
0.000
0.000
0.631
6.945
0.000
1.010
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.5. Steel
3. Aluminum
4, Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6, Rubber
7. Plastic
6, Glass
9. Other
100%
145.276 TOTAL
Figure 4.2-1: Transmission System Base Material Content
As shown in Table 4.2-2, there are material, technological, and process mass reduction
opportunities that are available for future transmissions.
Table 4.2-2: Mass reduction and Cost Impact for Transmission System
CO
•-=:
2-
O>
3
02
02
02
02
02
jg
02
02
02
02
02
jg
02
02
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
..........
12
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
"do"
00
00
00
00
00
"do"
00
00
Description
Transmission System
External Components
Case Subsystem
Gear Train Subsystem
Internal Clutch Subsystem
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Misc. Subsystem
Electric Motor & Controls Subsystem
Transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
X
Mass
Reduction
"kg" ;-:
0.000
10.659
2.052
4.232
8".622
2.419
0.872
0.000
0.060
0.000
Qiao
5.271
0.000
34.186
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (z>
SO. 00
430.60
$24.18
-$39.94
42173
411.52
45.03
$1.00
$5.24
$0.00
sold'
448.81
$0.00
-$128.20
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
42.87
$11.79
49.44
42"52
44.76
45.76
-
$87.45
—
49.26
-$3.75
(Increase)
System/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
-
34.69%
16.56%
13.89%
"12.49%"
32.27%
12.22%
—
6.84%"
—
18.53%
-
23.53%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.00%
0.43%
0.08%
0.17%
dls'%"
0.10%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
dld'%"
0.21%
0.00%
1.39%
(1) "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 351
4.2.1 External Components Subsystem
4.2.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
After a systematic investigation, no opportunities for mass reduction or cost benefits were
found in this subsystem (as shown in Table 4.2-3).
Table 4.2-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for External Components
en
•-=
U).
(D
3
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
01
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
99
Description
External Components
Lifting Hooks / Eyes
Venting Caps (Transmission Breather)
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
0.000
0.023
0.000
0.023
145.276
2454
0.02%
0.00%
4.2.2 Case Subsystem
4.2.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table 4.2-4, the most significant contributor to the mass reduction of the
Case Subsystem was the raw material in the case components. The Case Subsystem is
made up of three sections (Image 4.2-2): the bell housing, transmission, and transfer
case. These sections are currently made of aluminum SAE 380 alloy.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 352
Image 4.2-2: Case Subsystem Housings
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Table 4.2-4: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Cass Subsystem
Cfl
•-<
£2.
(D
3
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Description
Case Subsystem
Tranmission Case
Transfer Housing
Covers
Transmission Fluid measurement
Bolts
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
18784
10,092
0.037
0.363
1.304
0.145
30.725
145.276
2454
21.15%
1.25%
4.2.2.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
For years, Chevrolet has used aluminum transmission cases and optimized its thin wall
casting procedure. The strength and integrity of its cases have never proposed an issue or
concern; its mass weight compares to others in the industry using aluminum.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 353
4.2.2.3
Mass reduction Industry Trends
There are manufacturers in the industry that have adopted the use of alternate materials
such as magnesium alloy in order to reduce transmission weight and still maintain case
integrity. Among these manufacturers is Mercedes-Benz with its seven-speed
transmission, the 7G-TRONIC. General Motors annually produces approximately 1
million GMT800 full-size trucks and SUVs that have two magnesium transfer case halves
with a total weight of 7 kg per unit. Volkswagen produces daily 600 magnesium alloy
manual transmission cases for its Passat and the Audi A4/A6. The magnesium
transmission case is a proven mass reduction product.
Carbon fiber combinations have also been found as alternate materials for transmission
cases. Composite gearboxes are significantly lighter than traditional alloy boxes, have up
to 25% more stiffness, can operate at higher temperatures, and are easy to modify and
repair. Carbon fiber composites now make up almost 85% of the volume of a
contemporary Formula 1 car while accounting for less than 25% of its mass (such as the
one shown in Image 4.2-3).
Image 4.2-3: 2004 Bar Honda Team Composite Gearbox
(Source: Honda Formula 1 photo)
Along with the obvious weight savings, composite gearboxes have almost infinite fatigue
durability and thusly can be made far more cost effective than the alloy boxes which they
replace. At this time, however, there are no viable manufacturing processes that can
manufacture a transmission case in the time required for mass production.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 354
4.2.2.4 Summary of Mass reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.2-5 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Case Subsystem.
Chevrolet has always been mass reduction conscious in its designs, but tends to lean
toward the conservative and cost-conscious side of the engineering spectrum in drive
train design. This is why carbon fiber and magnesium have not found their way into the
Silverado's drive train components.
Table 4.2-5: Summary of Mass reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Transmission Case
Subassembly
Component/
Aluminum Case
Assemble
Aluminum Case
Assemble
Aluminum Case
Assemble
Reduce wall thickness
Carbon fiber material
replacement
Magnesium material
replacement
Impact
10% weight save
50% "weight save
30% weight save
& Trade-offs
Integrity and strength
compromised
Extensive engineering
hurdles to overcome
Low risk moderate cost
increase
4.2.2.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly are shown below in Table
4.2-6. Components shown utilizing magnesium alloy will meet the integrity needs of the
system and fulfill the mass reduction parameters.
Table 4.2-6: Mass reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Case Subsystem
CD
*<
•
IT*.
*
3
§2
02
02
02
02
02
02
to
E
CP"
It
MS
in
«
§2
02
02
02
02
02
02
to
Cl
r
CD
c
Cl-
IP
l*5t
S,
m
3
00
01
02
03
04
05
95
Transfer
Covers
Fluid
Bolts
Misc.
tif
a 390 Mg
a 3 BO Mg
a 3BO Mg
n/a
n/a
n/a
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 355
4.2.2.6 Mass reduction and Cost Impact
The greatest mass reduction was gained by the material selection of magnesium alloy, as
shown in Table 4.2-7. Analysis of the thin wall on each of the components of the
subassembly did not garner an outcome that would have proven to be an advantage to the
end product. Although there were opportunities to reduce the actual mass of the Case
Subsystem, those have not pursued them at this time. The choice of magnesium has been
proven to be cost-effective and meet the mass reduction goals.
Table 4.2-7: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Case Subsystem
CO
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Descripfon
Case Subsystem
Tranmission Case
Transfer Housing
Covers
Transmission Fluid measurement
Bolts
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Leve
Sse~
1C
Mass
Red noon
'kg' (i)
6.934
3.408
0.014
0.303
0.000
0.000
10.659
(Decrease}
Cost Impact
Tra
-$21.38
-$4.50
-$0.13
-$1.07
-$3.53
$0.00
-$30.60
(Increase)
Average
Cos-;
Kfcgram
S/kg
-$3.08
-$1.32
-$9.51
-$3.52
-
-
-2.871
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducfon
T£
36.91%
33.77%
37.84%
83.47%
-
-
34.69%
VehKte
Mass
Reducion
•%•
0.28%
0.14%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.43%
(1) "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.2.3 Gear Train Subsystem
4.2.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table 4.2-8, the gear train offered opportunities to reduce weight and lower
cost for the transmission. We will look outside of the auto industry for ideas to shed
weight.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 356
Table 4.2-8: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Gear Train Subsystem
c/)
•^
£3.
(D
3
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Description
Gear Train Subsystem
Sun Gears
Ring Gears
Planetary Gears
Planetary Carriers
Bearings
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
1.114
3.140
2.033
4.637
1.019
0.450
12.392
145.276
2454
8.53%
0.50%
4.2.3.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet 6L80E transmission Gear Train Subsystem is a very robust second-
generation unit: the "6" in 6L80E denotes the number of forward speeds, while "80" is an
arbitrary figure that represents its strength. The 6L80E replaced the venerable, first-
generation TH400-based 4L80E (rather than some view as succeeding the 700R4-based
4L60E). GM's 6-speed has been reserved for only the most demanding applications, such
as those in fifth-generation Camaros, C6 Corvettes, and heavy-duty trucks and SUVs.
4.2.3.3 Mass reduction Industry Trends
The gear train has opportunities for cost-effective light-weighting as well as longer life
cycles through the use of aerospace-style lightened gear designs and raw materials. New
and smaller plastic components will be used to reduce weight and cost throughout the
overall mass of the transmission. Today, the actual transmission is becoming more
compact and gear selection is getting larger.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 357
4.2.3.4 Summary of Mass reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.2-9 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the 6L80E Gear Train
Subsystem. The present Chevrolet gear train design is compact and demonstrates a
conscious engineering design choice toward durability.
Table 4.2-9: Summary of Mass reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Gear Train
Subassembly
Component/ Assembly
Sun, Ring & Planet
Gears
PM Sintered Carrier
Steel Thrust Bearings
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace 8620 & 4140
Gear Steel with C 61,
C64, M53, 9310 and
6265
Replace PM with
Schaeffler design 4130
Stamped Steel
Replace steel with
Vespel Sp-21D
Estimated Impact
10 to 25% weight save
30% weight save
75% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
No risk moderate cost
increase
Enginered solution
dependent some risk
Low risk cost save
The light-weighting techniques used to downsize drive train gears in an automotive
transmission are the same as those used by aerospace gear box designers. A mindset
during the design process that utilizes all materials and process advantages available
allows for an outcome that will meet the end user's needs and requirements. Today's
design and simulation tools allow ideas to now be designed, tested, and examined within
the same day rather than what previously required weeks or months. These tools allow
lighter, stronger, and better transmissions to be designed for the future.
Aerospace gear material, such as C61, C64, Pyrowear® 53 (from QuesTek Innovations),
and other 6265 products provide the ability to reduce the drive gear mass in this system.
These new alloys provide three different levels of case hardness (with the ability to "dial-
in" hardness profiles, including exceptionally high case hardness). Their high core
strength, toughness, and other properties also offer the potential to reduce drivetrain
weight or increase power density relative to incumbent alloys such as AISI 9310 or
Pyrowear® Alloy 53. This new class of alloys utilizes an efficient nanoscale M2C carbide
strengthening dispersion. Key benefits of these alloys include: high fatigue resistance (in
contact, bending, and scoring); high hardenability achieved via low-pressure
carburization (thus reducing quench distortion and associated manufacturing steps); a
tempering temperature of 900°F or higher (providing up to a 500°F increase in thermal
stability relative to incumbent alloys); and core tensile strengths in excess of 225 ksi.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 358
Table 4.2-10: Gear Material Density, Cost (2013 CY), and Weight Reduction
Standard
High Strength
Aerospace
Gear Steel "
AISI Grade
1030
1080
4118
4140
4320
4620
5140
6265
8620
9310
Pyro 53
C61
"ceT"
Pod ay
Density
kg/m*
tLH°_8-5
7.7 tO 8.5
7.7 tO 8.5
7.7 tO 8. 5
7J tO 8.5
,7.7 tO 8.5
7.7 tO 8.5
7.7 tO 8. 5
7.7 tO 8.5""
7.7 tO 8. 5
7.7 tO 8.5
7.7 tO 8. 5
7.7 tO 8. 5'
$per
Kg
1.3
1.56
2.07
1.72
4.12
3.39
1.35
1.75
1.92
3.34
5.5
44.09
39.68
Weight
Reduction
%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.00%
3.00%
5.00%
7.00%
8.00%
10.00%
13.00%
20.00%
20.00%'
With selective use of these materials, the sun, ring, and planet gears' finish, durability,
life cycle, and processing costs can be improved. The current cost of these technically
advanced materials will limit their use in the near-term; however, by 2025 it is
anticipated that the cost of these materials will be competative in relation to current top
performing materials like 9310 and Pyro 53 providing viable alternatives to achieving
weight reduction (Table 4.2-10). Some automotive companies are currently using these
materials for gears that are in need of integrity help in their application. Premium
material is used as much as possible within the parameters of this study. For the analysis
FEV assumed the cost of C61 at $5.50/kg and C64 at $3.84/kg.
Image 4.2-4: Gear Train Subsystem
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 359
Replacing the powder metal sintered carrier with a lightweight stamped steel design
(Image 4.2-5) proved to be a significant weight savings in the planet carrier. The cost
was not prohibitive after investigation. There are many vehicles in the field that utilize
this configuration for weight savings in their differential applications. INA's light-weight
spur gear differential can weigh 30% less than a traditional bevel gear carrier and remain
completely inside the original design envelope. This is a tremendous improvement in the
power density of a differential. INA's spur gear differential offers distinct advantages
over a bevel gear arrangement:
• Reduced CO2 emissions with its lighter weight
• Much more compact than a conventional bevel gear differential
• Higher torque capacity despite its lower weight
• Custom designed for each transmission application
Different gearing variations allow Scheaffler to custom design a spur gear differential to
fit the application. Four technically viable gearing concepts allow different designs to
keep costs low and make the best use of space in the case. This is just the first step in
weight reduction: for customers, transmission cases can be smaller, lighter, and less
expensive.
Image 4.2-5: Planet Carrier Sub-Subsystem
(Source: GKN & INA photos)
DuPont™ Vespel® SP-21 replaced the industry standard steel thrust bearings. Considered
among other products, Vespel had all the qualities required for a worry-free replacement
in our application; it has a proven track record of success in other transmissions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 360
Image 4.2-6: Thrust Bearing
(Sources: Timken and DuPont photos)
4.2.3.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly are shown below Table 4.2-11.
The gear system configuration was lightened by using high-strength C61 and C64
aerospace steel alloys to ensure the subassembly integrity. Next is the planetary carrier,
which will be a stamped steel assembly with spur gears. Finally, the thrust bearings
shown in Image 4.2-6 utilized Vespel SP-21D, which, as mentioned previously, is a
DuPont product in use by many other transmission builders.
Table 4.2-11: Mass reduction Ideas Selected for Gear Train Subsystem
CO
l-t-
CD
3
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
| Subsystem
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Description
Gear Train Subsystem
Sun Gears
Ring Gears
Planetary Gears
Planetary Carriers
Bearings & Pins
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
Replace 4130 with C61
Replace 4140 with C64
Replace 4320 with C64
Powder Metal to Stamped Steel
Steel Bearings to Vespel
n/a
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 361
4.2.3.6 Mass reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
Using aerospace gear lighting techniques and materials as on all of the gears and shafts in
an automotive transmission should be the norm
Table 4.2-12).
Stamped steel instead of cast iron on the differential carrier is a 30% weight savings with
a cost that is well within the realm of reason for this large weight loss.
The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection and gear
lightening techniques. The selection of Vespel® reduced the bearings' cost by 60% to
70%, with a weight loss per bearing of more than 75%.
Table 4.2-12: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Case Subsystem
C/J
•s
OJ
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Descriptor!
Gear Train Subsystem
Sun Gears
Ring Gears
Planetary Gears
Planetary Carriers
Bearings
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Lsvs
Setec
X
Mass
Reducjon
'k3' (i)
0.167
0.471
0.305
0.695
0.045
0.369
2.052
(Decrease)
Ccs: l~pac
•Vra
-$3.11
-$5.75
$5.85
$4.13
$23.06
$0.00
$24.18
(Increase)
Average
Cos?
K cgr=~
S/kg
-$18.59
-$12.21
$19.18
$5.94
$518.13
$0.00
11.785
(Increase)
Sub-Sub;./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducer
•%•
15.00%
15.00%
15.00%
14.99%
4.37%
82.00%
16.56%
Vehicle
Mass
Reducion
•%'
0.01%
0.02%
0.01%
0.03%
0.00%
0.02%
0.08%
(1) "-<-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.2.4 Internal Clutch Subsystem
4.2.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
After a systematic examination, opportunities were found for both mass reduction or cost
benefits in this subsystem. As seen in Table 4.2-13, the most significant contributor to
the mass of the Internal Clutch Subsystem is the clutch and brake hubs (Image 4.2-7).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 362
i .2*3-4 CKrtch Hjt>
Image 4.2-7: Internal Clutch Subsystem
(Source: ATSG photos)
Table 4.2-13: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Internal Clutch
CO
'-^
(n_
(D
3
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Description
Internal Clutch Subsystem
Sprague / Qne-Way Clutches
Brake & Clutch Asm
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shafts, Sleeves & Couplers
Clutch & Brake Discs & Plates
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
2.237
0.000
20.715
0.000
6.931
0.586
30.469
145.276
2454
20.97%
1.24%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 363
4.2.4.2
Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Internal Clutch System in the GM 6L80E transmission has no bands - only clutches
- and heavily relies on electronics for all aspects of operation. By eliminating the bands,
GM reduced the number of torque-handling components inside the transmission while
also improving shift quality. The 6L80E is a clutch-to-clutch unit, which means that
unless one clutch engages at exactly the same time when another clutch is disengaging,
the transmission will bind up. When GM factory-assembles the 6L80E, it installs a
control module directly to the valve body. It houses all the pressure control solenoids,
shift solenoids, and the transmission control module in one sealed unit. There are many
electronic adjustments that can be made to alter clutch pressures and apply times for
durability. The factory tuning is good and manages the shift quality well.
4.2.4.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trend
More gears and a more complex gear selection mean more efficient internal clutch
system demands. Material selection and mass reduction were the only opportunities
found in this subsystem. We have concentrated on the material for the clutch drums that
will allow system mass reduction while still ensuring the same integrity.
4.2 A A Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.2-14 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Internal Clutch
Subsystem. The subsystem has a one-way sprag clutch in it. The clutch hub material
presented opportunities to reduce mass. Material choice for mass reduction was dictated
by the maintenance of product performance and integrity.
Table 4.2-14: Summary of Mass Reduction Ideas Considered for Internal Clutch Subsystem
Component/
Sprague / One-Way
Clutches
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Thrust
Replace 3620 & 4140
Gear Steel with C 61.
C64. M53. 9310 and
6215
Replace mild steel
drum with high strength
steel with thiner wall
Replace steel with
VespelSp-21D
10 to 25% weight save
10% weight save
75% weight save
&
and/or
Mo risk moderate cost
increase
Enginered solution
dependent some risk
Low risk cost save
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 364
4.2.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas for this subsystem are shown here in Table 4.2-15.
Table 4.2-15: Mass reduction Ideas Selected for Internal Clutch Subsystem
M
(fl
(D
3
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
en
cr
U)
(D
3
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
en
cr
Cn
cr
tn
1£i
(D
3
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Description
Internal Clutch Subsystem
Spraque
Brake & Clutch Assembly
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shafts, Sleeves & Couplings
Clutch & Bake Discs/Plates
Misc.
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
Replaced Powder Metal with C61
n/a
Replaced 4140 & PM with C61 and MMC
n/a
n/a
Replaced Molded Ruber with IPS
Having had conversation with the bearing and sprag clutch manufactures about these
products (Image 4.2-8) that are supplied to the OEMs, they say that lighter and more
effective clutches are in development. A functional and robust bi-directional sprag clutch
would be a great opportunity to improve the functionality of the transmission and reduce
mass. With time, a 10% weight savings on the present sprag unit can be realized.
Image 4.2-8: Sprag Clutch Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
In the Internal Clutch Subsystem, an opportunity to shed some weight was found within
the high-strength steel drums. Today's plates are drawn into a cup, and then the side wall
of the cup is formed into a gear shape by ironing, as shown in Image 4.2-9.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 365
Drum
Image 4.2-9: Gear Drum Formed by Ironing Side Wall of Cup
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Forging from billets as an option is inappropriate to the production of parts having little
thickness (such as gear drums) due to the large change in shape. Thus, the application of
bulk forming from plates having greater thickness than sheets gradually increases.
Although gear drums are made of mild steel sheets with high formability, it is desirable to
produce the gear drums from high-strength steel sheets. This is due in owing to the
reduction in the weight of automobiles. However, the spline forming of high-strength
steel cups having low formability is difficult due to severe deformation, in particular
ultra-high strength steel cups.
To improve the formability in the spline forming of ultra-high strength steel gear drums,
the side wall of a cup formed into a gear shape is heated by the resistance heating (Image
4.2-10).
Electrode
Image 4.2-10: Resistance Heating of Side Wall in Hot Spline Forming of Gear Drum
(Source: Science Direct http://www.vsxbcn.com/down/upfile/soft/20120106/43-p496.swf)
The corner and edge of the side wall are in contact with the upper and lower electrodes,
respectively. When the thickness of the side wall is kept uniform by applying ironing in
the deep drawing of the cup, the side wall is uniformly heated by the electrification,
namely, the cross-sectional area of the side wall is uniform in the current direction. In
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 366
addition, no heating of the bottom of the cup has the function of preventing the rapture in
the bottom during the spline forming. The applicable range of the resistance heating is
extended to the spline forming.
The hot spline forming of a die-quenched gear drum using the resistance heating is shown
in Image 4.2-11. The side wall of the resistance-heated drawn cup is ironed and then die-
quenched. Since the resistance heating is very rapid, the cup is hardly oxidized.
Image 4.2-11: Hot Spline Forming of Die-quenched Gear Drum Using Resistance Heating
a) Heating at 900 °C; b) Die quenching; c) Formed Drum
(Source: Science Direct http://www.vsxbcn.com/down/upfile/soft/20120106/43-p496.swf)
By using this process and high-strength steels to manufacture the various drive hubs in
this system, a 10% mass weight savings is achieved.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 367
Table 4.2-16: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Internal Clutch
•I
(D
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
a-j
£Z
CT
05
1
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
99
Descriptor!
Internal Clutch Subsystem
Sprague / One-Way Clutches
Brake & Clutch Asm
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shafts, Sleeves & Couplers
Clutch & Brake Discs & Plates
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Levs!
Setact
X
Mass
Reduoton
Tqf(U
0.336
0.000
3.840
0.000
0.000
0.057
4.232
(Decrease)
Cos: Irr.psc
T<2>
-54.79
$0.00
434.21
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.94
-$39.94
(Increase)
Average
Cc'z-j
K ~gr3~
S/kg
-$14.28
-
-$8.91
-
-
-$16.57
-9.437
(Increase)
Sub- Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
ReducSon
•%'
15.00%
-
18.54%
-
-
9.66%
13.89%
Vehicle
Mass
ReducSon
"%'
0.01%
0.00%
0.16%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.17%
(1) "V1 = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "•«•" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.2.5 Launch Clutch Subsystem
4.2.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.2-17, the most significant contributor to the Launch Clutch
Subsystem mass is the torque converter. The torque converter transforms hydraulic
pressure within the transmission to mechanical torque, which drives the drive shafts and,
ultimately, the wheels. The Torque Converter Assembly Subsystem (Image 4.2-12) is a
welded construction with SAE 1018 steel as its raw material.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 368
Image 4.2-12: Torque Converter
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Table 4.2-17: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Launch Clutch Subsystem
GO
^=c
(£
J?
3
02
02
02
Subsystem
05
05
05
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
99
Description
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Torque Converter Asm
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
19.320
0.970
20.290
145.276
2454
13.97%
0.83%
4.2.5.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado's Launch Clutch Subsystem is a direct result of the traditional style
transmission that was selected for it. The torque converter normally takes the place of a
mechanical clutch in a vehicle with an automatic transmission, allowing the load to be
separated from the power source. The present torque converter is an auto industry
standard that has been used since the 1950s. Improvements on this unit will lead to a
lighter and better drive system. The key characteristic of a torque converter is its ability
to multiply torque when there is a substantial difference between input and output
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 369
rotational speed, thus providing the equivalent of a reduction gear. Some of these devices
are also equipped with a temporary locking mechanism that rigidly binds the engine to
the transmission when their speeds are nearly equal, to avoid slippage and a resulting loss
of efficiency. The Silverado torque converter has this lockup.
4.2.5.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Although DCT (Dual Clutch 7-8-9 speed Transmissions) have increased in popularity for
fuel economy and mass weight savings, they are still more expensive than torque
converter-style transmissions (depending, of course, on the vehicle segment). Although
very efficient in most applications, the Silverado's duty cycle requirements exclude this
type of transmission for consideration. Pulling a boat out of the water uses all the
available horse power and torque that is available. This type of operational use demands
an automatic transmission coupled to a torque converter or a manual clutch with a
standard transmission. This configuration of transferring power from the engine to the
drive line appears that it will be used for some time.
4.2.5.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.2-18 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Launch Clutch
Subsystem. The Silverado gear train design is robust with exceptional consideration
given to a heavy-duty life cycle. The torque converter was designed with the same
operational intent. Replacing the industry standard steel torque converter with a plastic or
aluminum unit would be a huge mass reduction improvement. Eliminating the torque
converter completely by using a DCT-style transmission would be another option.
Table 4.2-18: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Launch Clutch System
Torque Converter
Torque Converter
Replace with plastic
unit using DuPont Zytel
HTN51LG50HSLBK033
Replace steel vvith
aluminum
Replace with DCT
transmission
75% -/-/eight save
50% weight save
10% weight save
&
Application still in R&D
Medium risk moderate
cost increase
Application risk high
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 370
4.2.5.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected for this subassembly are shown in Table 4.2-19.
Regarding the torque converter application, a full aluminum torque converter assembly
was proposed, knowing that it will affect multiple platforms. Aluminum torque
converters are being used in off-road, racing, and heavy industrial equipment and some
automotive applications. A cast design of an aluminum turbine, impeller, and housing
will reduce the assembly steps in process and make for a simpler assembly.
Since the current automatic transmission used in the Silverado requires a lockup of torque
converter to engine, aluminum torque converter housing has not been an option. Metal
Matrix Composite (MMC) technology enables the use of aluminum because it creates a
wear-resistant surface for the lockup plate to engage. This surface will not gall, smear, or
otherwise degrade causing a loss of coefficient of friction required for this system to
operate correctly. Using an aluminum surface versus aluminum MMC would not allow
the lock up to perform over the heavy-duty cycle that is required for the Silverado.
Companies currently operate that have the ability to reduce the overall mass of this unit.
For example, Century, Inc. in Traverse City, Michigan, advertises proprietary technology
and patented processes that allow for up to a 45% weight reduction in some vehicle
components with the uses of MMCs to create strong, stiff, wear-resistant, vibration
damped, and lightweight components. Century has developed a proprietary process to
mass-produce MMC materials needed for the integrity of the torque converter. Century
has done preliminary CAE calculations on key components of the unit to validate its
proposal is sound. Further study is required to move to prototype, however.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 371
CENTURY
Simulation Results
• Basic simulation conducted to determine effect of wall thickness on stress
• Wall thickness of A" and .3" compared
• Both had tolerable stress levels for strength and fatigue
• Fatigue is based on measured properties for Century's aluminum and
aluminum MMC material
.4" wall thickness
.3" wall thickness
Image 4.2-13: Torque Converter Front Cover
(Source: Century, Inc.)
Alcast Aluminum Foundry in Peoria, Illinois, specializes in high-quality and high-
precision American-made aluminum castings. It has designed a low-pressure, bottom-fill,
electromagnetic, permanent mold-casting process specifically to provide top quality
aluminum torque converter castings for its customers. Using a shell core process, Alcast
can provide exceptionally smooth surface finishes. Along with segmented, helically
drawn, or single-piece cores they can produce very exotic blade configurations in torque
converters. Alcast has honed the processes of producing the required quality components
needed for the OEMs that produce aluminum converter components.
The use of MMC preforms (Image 4.2-14) casted into the aluminum case sections will
give the torque converter the integrity and light-weight physical characteristics required
for this unit.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 372
Monolithic
Aluminum Casting
MMC Preform
Image 4.2-14: MMC Preform
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Table 4.2-19: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Launch Clutch System
CO
3
02
02
CO
S-
tfi
(0
d
05
05
CO
E
cr
CO
cr
tfS
^~
(D
3
00
01
Description
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Torque Converter
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
Replace steel torque converter with aluminum
4.2.5.6 Preliminary Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection as shown in
Table 4.2-20. Using cast A356 aluminum, compared to the brazed steel unit (Image
4.2-15), will yield a 40% to 50% weight loss. This application is in the field today with
the required material and technology in place to produce a good replacement for the
traditional steel brazed converter.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 373
Image 4.2-15: Aluminum Torque Converter
(Sources: alcastcompany.com; FEV, Inc.)
Table 4.2-20: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Launch Clutch System
f
fD
02
02
02
g
cr
f
(D
05
05
05
eo
&
CD
00
01
99
Descriptor.
Launch Clutch Subsystem
Torque Converter Asm
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Setec
1D
Mass
ReduGion
TT(fl
8.622
0.000
8.622
(Decrease)
Ccrl'-pa"
'§•(2)
421.73
$0.00
-$21.73
(Increase)
Average
cos-;
KSsgram
S/kg
-$2.52
-
-2.521
(Increase)
Sub- Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
RedueSon
•%'
44.63%
-
42.49%
Vehicle
Mass
ReducSon
•%'
0.35%
0.00%
0.35%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "•*•" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.2.6 Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
4.2.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table 4.2-21, the most significant contributor to the Oil Pump and Filter
Subsystem mass is the oil pump unit. The pump unit is cast iron in the Silverado
teardown cost study.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 374
Table 4.2-21: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Cfl
^<
J2-
(D
3
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
10
99
Description
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Oil Pump Asm
Covers
Filters
Oil Cooler
Oil Squirter
Plugs
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
4.707
0.000
0.439
2.350
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.496
145.276
2454
5.16%
0.31%
4.2.6.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The oil pump is a vane pump with cast aluminum housing. It has a powder metal pump
slide and rotor that services to oil volume and pressure requirements of this transmission.
A vane pump is used to ensure that there is adequate oil flow through the system to cool
the transmission during extreme load conditions. This vehicle has a dedicated oil cooler
as insurance against overheating, which could possibly damage the system.
4.2.6.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Every day, the auto manufacturing industry discovers or integrates new and innovative
technologies that come to it from other sectors. In the case of the transmission oil pump,
the racing industry has led the way in developing lightweight and efficient pumps.
Aluminum, aluminum-magnesium alloys, and even plastic polymers are presently
available. This is a great application by which to achieve mass weight reduction at a
reasonable cost.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 375
4.2.6.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.2-22 contains the mass reduction ideas considered for the Oil Pump and Filter
Subsystem. Aluminum, magnesium, and plastic are viable materials for use in this
application currently.
Table 4.2-22: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Oil Pump and Filter
Subsystem
Component'
Oil Pump Housing
Oil Pump Housing
Oil Cooler Brackets
Replace Aluminum with
Magnesium
Replace Aluminum with
Plastic
Replace steel with
Aluminum
10 to 30% weight save
30 to 50% weight save
30 to 40% weight save
& Trade-offs
and/or
Mo risk moderate cost
increase
Enginered solution
dependent some risk
Low risk cost save
4.2.6.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly are shown in Table 4.2-23.
There are pump suppliers, such as Scherzinger Pump Technology, that produce state-of-
the-art magnesium and aluminum pumps for the racing world today (Image 4.2-16).
These companies are supplying lightweight transmission solutions and can help bring
innovative pump approaches to the automotive industry.
Table 4.2-23: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
**
9.
02
02
02
02
IB
«
*<
BT-1-,
=1
fifi
06
06
06
w
W
m
or
at
*«
V
3
o-o
01
04
99
Oil Pump & Filter
Oil PumD Asm
Oil Cooler
Misc
iar
Replace aluminum with magnesium
Steel bracket to aluminum
n/a
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 376
Image 4.2-16: Aluminum Oil Pump Assembly
(Source: Samarins.com)
4.2.6.6 Preliminary Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
The subsystem's mass reductions were gained through the material selection shown in
Table 4.2-24. The use of a magnesium MRI 153M instead of the aluminum AA390 alloy
reduced the weight of the assembly by 40%. Similar applications are used by racing
component manufacturers and some OEMs to lighten transmissions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 377
Table 4.2-24: Preliminary Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for the Oil Pump
and Filter System
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
ffl
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
I?
f
"I
0-0
01
02
03
04
05
10
99
Oil
Oil Pump Asm
Covers
Filters
Oil Cooler
Oil Squirter
Plugs
fvlise
Net of
Idea
Leiel
Seied
Mass
Reducfon
"V m
1442
0 000
0 000
0977
0 000
0 000
0 000
2,419
fDecrease;;
'«' ia
-S1227
SO. 00
SO 00
50.75
SO 00
SO 00
SO 00
-$11 <1?
ijncrsaie.:
Coeii
Bograi!
Sftg
-53 51
S::'« 77
_
4 7R?
MiiS
Reduoon
'%'
Qf| !T>""'C
41 56%
_
1? ?T%
Mass
Redudon
'%"
0 06--.
0.00%
0 Ou-i
0.04%
0 UU'i
0 00%
0 UU'i
il 10%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" =
|2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" =
4.2.7 Mechanical Controls Subsystem
4.2.7.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table 4.2-25, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Mechanical
Controls Subsystem is the valve body unit. The Silverado's valve unit is cast aluminum.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 378
Table 4.2-25: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Mechanical Controls Subsystem
CO
••<
U)
(D
3
02
02
02
Subsystem
07
07
07
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
Description
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Valve Body Asm
Gear Selector System
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
6.557
0.581
7.138
145.276
2454
4.91%
0.29%
4.2.7.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The control valve is a two-piece construction, aluminum diecast valve body that handles
the shifting requirements of this transmission from gear to gear. This style of control
valve has been used in this configuration for more than a decade.
4.2.7.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
With the increased number of gear change options being introduced by automatic
transmission designers, a need for a more sophisticated control mechanism has been
identified. The expectation is a lighter, more efficient, and cost neutral product for the
customer. The choices are plastic, magnesium, or MMC of some sort will improve the
performance of the control valve.
4.2.7.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.2-26 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Mechanical Controls
Subsystem. Magnesium, plastic, and MMC are viable materials presently used in this
application.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 379
Table 4.2-26: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Mechanical Control
Subsystem
Component/
Control Valve
Control Valve
Control Valve
Replace Aluminum with
Magnesium
Replace Aluminum with
Plastic
Replace Aluminum wit
MMC
20 to 30% weight save
50% weight save
20 to 30% weight save
& Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
Low risk low cost
Still in R&D cost
neutral
Low risk high cost
4.2.7.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly are shown in Table 4.2-27. The
control valve body is a diecast component that has the opportunity to be lightened. There
are drivetrain product suppliers such as Metaldyne that are currently producing state-of-
the-art aluminum diecast (Image 4.2-17) valve bodies for OEMs worldwide. These
companies are supplying lightweight transmission solutions and can help introduce new,
innovative control valve approaches to the automotive industry.
Table 4.2-27: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Mechanical Control Subsystem
Bt
H
3
§2
02
02
02
m
c
(OP
H.
i
§T
07
07
07
en
c
OP
tffl
ET
(T
>•*
a,
1
00
01
02
qq
Valve Body Asm
Gear Selector System
Wise
far
n/a
n/a
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 380
Image 4.2-17: Aluminum Valve Body Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.2.7.6 Mass reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection as shown in
Table 4.2-28. The use of a magnesium MRI 153M instead of the aluminum AA390 alloy
will reduce the weight of the assembly by 40%. Similar applications are currently being
used by racing component manufacturers and some OEMs to lighten their transmissions.
Table 4.2-28: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Mechanical Controls
Subsystem
CO
1
02
gg
"02
g
cr
f
fD
3
"07"
...„.„...
07
Sub- Subsystem
"do"
.........
02
Descriptor!
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Valve Body Asm
Gear Selector System
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Setec
X
Mass
Reducion
**g" (i)
0.872
0.000
0.872
(Decrease}
Coalmpaes
*S"p>
-$5.03
$0.00
-$5.03
(Increase;
Average
Cos*
K cgrar
S/kg
-$5.76
-
-5.763
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducaon
"%'
13.30%
-
12.22%
Vehicte
Mass
Reducdon
'%'
0.04%
0.00%
0.04%
(1) "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2} "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 381
4.2.8 Electrical Controls Subsystem
After a systematic investigation, it is determined there are no opportunities for mass
reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem (Table 4.2-29).
Table 4.2-29: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Electrical Controls
an
•^i
«)
t~*
(D
3
02
02
02
02
02
02
Subsystem
08
08
08
08
08
08
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
99
Description
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Controller
Connector / Electrical Integrator Asm
Sensors
Switch
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
1.600
2.533
0.000
0.166
0.000
4.299
145.276
2454
2.96%
0.18%
4.2.9 Parking Mechanism Subsystem
4.2.9.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As Table 4.2-30 shows, the Silverado Parking Mechanism Subsystem consists of shift
linkage externally connected to the steering column and parking mechanism internal to
the transmission. This system configuration has been with the Silverado for a decade
(Image 4.2-18).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 382
Image 4.2-18: Parking Mechanism Subsystem
(Source: NalleyAuto)
Table 4.2-30: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Parking Mechanism Subsystem
CO
"<
(fl
(D
3
02
02
02
Subsystem
09
09
09
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
03
Description
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Shafts / Rods
Pawls
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
0.000
0.876
0.876
145.276
2454
0.60%
0.04%
4.2.9.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The most significant contributor to the mass of the Parking Mechanism Subsystem is the
parking pawl unit, which is made of steel stamping.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 383
4.2.9.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Examining this system, a complete mechanical way to lock up the transmission without
compromising safety is a benefit; safety and convenience drive a robust locking system.
The current trend in the industry is to lighten this mechanism while ensuring its safety
and effectiveness.
4.2.9.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.2-31 contains the mass reduction ideas considered for the Parking Mechanism
Subsystem. Our expectations would be a high-strength steel, MMC, and MMCL of some
sort to improve the system.
Table 4.2-31: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Parking Mechanism
Subsystem
Linkage
Linkage
Linkage
Pawl
Pawl
Paw!
Replace 1018 CRS
with high strength steel
Replace 1018 CRS
with Aluminum
Replace 101 8 CRS
with CCF
Replace 1020 CRS
with high strength steel
Replace 1020 CRS
with MMCL
Replace 1020CRSI
with MMC
5 to 10% weight save
50% weight save
60% weight save
5 to 10% weight save
50% weight save
20 to 30% weight save
&
Low risk low cost
High risk high cost
Low risk high cost
Low risk low cost
Still in R&D cost
neutral
Low risk high cost
4.2.9.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly are shown in Table 4.2-32. The
Parking Mechanism Subsystem is composed of cold roll steel components that have little
opportunity for lightening. There are materials selections, however, that would help shed
some mass without compromising the safety aspect of some components: Ti-SB62 is
made via the conventional wrought processing route. Then, during an in-situ process,
titanium-boride (TiB) is formed. The TiB phase is responsible for the unique properties
of this titanium-boron alloy. Because of this process, no voids or defects are found like in
powder based titanium alloys. This material would make a great replacement for the
parking pawl: its 4.55 density will help system mass reduction (Image 4.2-19). There are
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 384
also MMCs in the marketplace today that will find themselves in future transmissions.
We have looked at them for help to reduce weight in other components.
Table 4.2-32: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Parking Mechanism
Subsystem
rn
Cfl
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 385
Table 4.2-33: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Parking Mechanism
Subsystem
C/3
I
i
02
jg
02
Subsystem
09
"09
09
Sub- Subsystem
00
.........
03
Descripion
Parking Mechanism Subsystem
Shafts'/ Rods
Pawls
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Setea
1A
Mass
RedueSon
Vm
O-o'bo
0.060
0.060
(Decrease)
Ccrl~p=~
•s1 P>
solo
$5.24
$5.24
(Decrease)
Average
Costf
Kitograin
S/kg
$87.45
87.455
(Decrease)
Sub- Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduaor
•%•
6.84%
6.84%
Vehicte
Mass
Reduoon
•%'
b'Tb'%
0.00%
0.00%
(1) "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.2.10 Miscellaneous Subsystem
After a systematic investigation it was determined there are no opportunities for mass
reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem (Table 4.2-34).
Table 4.2-34: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Miscellaneous Subsystem
CO
«<
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 386
Table 4.2-35: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Electric Motor and Controls
GO
~-<
Ui
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 387
Image 4.2-20: 6L80e Transmission and Transfer Case
(Source: ATSG)
Table 4.2-36: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Driver Operated External Controls
Subsystem
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 388
4.2.12.2 Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado transfer case receives power from the transmission then sends it to both the
front and rear axles. The driver can put the transfer case into either two- or four-wheel-
drive mode. This is sometimes accomplished by means of a shifter, similar to that in a
manual transmission. The Auto 4WD position allows the capability of an active transfer
case, which provides the benefits of on-demand torque biasing wet clutch and easy
vehicle tuning through software calibrations. The software calibrations allow more
features such as flexible adapt ready position and clutch preload torque levels. The
technology allows for vehicle speed-dependent clutch torque levels to enhance the
performance of the system. The system is calibrated to provide 0-6.78N-m (0-5 Ib. ft.) of
clutch torque during low-speed, low-engine torque operation, and predetermined higher
torque for 40 km/h (25 mph) and greater. This prevents crow-hop and binding at low
speeds and provides higher torque biases at higher vehicle speeds in order to enhance
stability.
4.2.12.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
There are vehicle manufacturers that have adopted some light-weighting options in their
T-Case designs, such as BorgWarner and Magna, which have been upgrading their
offering to OEMs on an annual basis. It is the OEMs, however, that drive the
specification of the unit: Reliable, quiet, lightweight and lastly cost-effective are the
directives to the supply base for these units. Expect to see a more compact and lighter
unit on the next generation four wheel drive vehicles with high strength steels and MMCs
helping to accomplish the task.
4.2.12.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.2-37 is the compilation of the mass reduction ideas considered for the Transfer
Case Subsystem. Material selection and light-weighting techniques will affect our options
to reduce mass.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 389
Table 4.2-37: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Transfer Case
Subsystem
Component/
Planetary Carrier
Planetary Carrier
Planetary Carrier
Sun & Pinion Gears
Sun & Pinion Gears
Sun & Pinion Gears
Output Shafts
Replace PM fvM with
C64 forging
Replace PM fv!4 with
Steel Stamping
Replace PM I'M With
MMC
Replace 1090 with
9310
Replace 1090 with CG1
Replace 1090 with
Pyro 53
Replace 1040 bar
stock with fvlubea tube
9310
Replace 1040 car
stock with fvlubea tube
C64
Replace 1040 bar
stock with fvlubea tube
Pyro 53
10 to 30% weight save
30 to 50% weight save
30 to 40% weight save
30 to 40% weight save
30 to 40% weight save
30 to 40% weight save
20 to 30% -weight save
30 to 40% weight save
20 to 30% weight save
§ Trade-offs
and/or
Mo risk, cost increase
Engineered solution
dependent some risk
Low risk cost increase
Low risk rnenarnul cost
increase
Low risk cost increase
Low risk cost increase
Low risk menamul cost
increase
Low risk cost increase
Low risk cost increase
4.2.12.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected from this subassembly are shown in Table 4.2-38.
Components shown utilize materials that will meet the integrity needs of the system and
fulfill the mass reduction parameters
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 390
Table 4.2-38: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Transfer Case Subsystem
at
H
1
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
1
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
c
*T
•US
2,
i
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
O7
08
10
99
Transfer Case
Carrier
Planetary Gears
Drive Gears & Shafts
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shift Fork Assembly
Drive Chain
Bearings & Spacers
Case Pump
Actuator Electric Motor & Sensors
Misc.
far
Replace Pfvl vvith Stamped Steel
Replace 1090 with 9310
Replace Bar stock with fvlubea tube
Replace FM M4 with MMC
Replace Pfvl steel with AL-MMC 2
rr'a
Replace Steel Bearings with Vespel
Steel tubs to Plastic
n/a
n/a
4.2.12.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
The mass reductions in this subsystem were gained by the material selection as shown in
Table 4.2-39. With the use of aerospace materials the weight of the components in this
subsystem are reduced by approximately 3.63% with a cost hit of only $0.11 per kg.
These materials will be cost-effective by 2020, helping the industry to maintain integrity
of their deliverable at a cost that will be affordable to the public.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 391
Table 4.2-39: Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Transfer Case Subsystem
01
1
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
CO
I
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
cz
O"
GO
O"
/•^
(D
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
10
99
Descriptor!
Transfer Case Subsystem
Carrier
Planetary Gears
Drive Gears & Shafts
Clutch & Brake Hubs
Shift Fork Assembly
Drive Chain
Bearings & Spacers
Case Pump
Actuator Electiric Motors & Sensors
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Setec
X
Mass
Reduoon
'kg* (t)
0.293
0.488
2.249
0.140
1.004
0.000
0.883
0.214
0.000
0.000
5.271
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
'S"(2>
$3.60
-$6.43
-$33.00
-$20.38
$9.57
$0.00
-$2.63
$0.46
$0.00
$0.00
-$48.81
(Increase)
Average
CGS-;
KSagram
S/kg
$12.31
-$13.17
-$14.68
-$145.57
$9.53
-
-$2.98
$2.16
-
-
-9.260
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub- Subs.
Mass
ReducSon
15.00%
13.33%
17.63%
3.76%
57.54%
-
74.49%
33.97%
-
-
0.00%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduoon
0.01%
0.02%
0.09%
0.01%
0.04%
0.00%
0.04%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.21%
(1) "•*-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
ft) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.2.13 Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
After a systematic investigation, it was determined there are no opportunities for mass
reduction or cost benefits in this subsystem (Table 4.2-40).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 392
Table 4.2-40: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Driver Operated External Controls
Subsystem
Cfl
•^
IJ>
ID
3
02
02
02
Subsystem
20
20
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
99
Description
Driver Operated External Controls Subsystem
Shift Module Assembly
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
3.088
0.042
3.130
145.276
2454
2.15%
0.13%
4.2.14 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
The secondary mass reduction was obtained by an overall 20% mass reduction of the
vehicle and this affected some of the transmission components by a 5.0 to 7.0%
reduction.
4.2.14.1 Component Reduction
The base Silverado transmission weighed 145.3 kg. The new weight after a full system
review garnered a weight of 110.9 kg. A compounding reduction of approximately 7.0%
of selected load and torque bearing components brought the overall weight down to
105.93 kg.
4.2.14.2
Transmission size reduction
The overall dimensions of the transmission after downsizing performed during the
analysis would only allow approximately 150 to 200 milometers reduction off the overall
length of the system. Weight reduction was achievable but reducing the package size will
be difficult.
Table 4.2-41 shows the secondary mass reduction and what the total reduction would be.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 393
Table 4.2-41: Calculated Material Content Between the Base BOM and the Compounded BOM
U)
•-=:
Hi
(D
3
02
•p2
-Q2
••jJ2~
"jj2-
••jj2"
••jj2"
02
02
02
•p2-
••02
•QJ-
••p2-
Subsystem
00
of
02
"63"
04"
"bs"
06
07
08
09
..........
jT
"12"
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
ob"
00
oo"
00
oo"
'on
00
00
00
"oo"
oo"
"no
00
Transmission System
Edema! Co ""orients
Case Subsystem
(Sear Tram Subsystem
Internal Clutch Subsystem
Launch Clutch Suosystem
Oil Pump and Filter Subsystem
Mechanical Controls Subsystem
Electrical Controls Subsystem
Parking Mechanise Suosystem
Misc. Subsystem
Electric Motor & Contmls subsystem
Transfer Case Subsystem
Driver Operated External Ccntiols Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i>
bib
10.7
2.05
4.23
8"62
2.42
0.872
0.00
0.060
b"."b"o
000
5"27
0.00
34.2
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
bib
1.27
0"65"b
1.18
l".13
0.044
0.146
0.00
0.00
b."bb
0.00
OJ43
0.00
5.17
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
'W m
bib
11.9
2.70
5.41
9L7
2.46
1.02
b.bb
0.064
b'bb
0.00
6"."b"i
0.00
39.4
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
'•$"(2,
$blb
-$30.60
""$2"4"18
-$39.94
"42173
-$11.52
45.03
$0.00
$5.24
$b"bo
$0.00
"-$43"81
$0.00
-$128.20
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"IT"
» (2)
Woo
$5.09
$2"41
$8.53
$2.42
$1.79
$1.68
$"b.o"b
$0.31
$b."bb
$0.00
$9.4i
$0.00
$31.64
(Decrease;
Cost
Impact
Total
"S"(2>
Woo
425.50
$26.59
431.41
419"32"
49.73
43.35
$0.00
$5.55
$b"."b"b
$0.00
"439"4b"
$0.00
-$96.57
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"J/kg"
$b".'bb
42.14
$9.84
45.80
4l".98
43.95
-$3.29
$0.00
$86.61
$"b""bo
$0.00
46.55
$0.00
-$2.45
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
b"bb%
0.49%
b"ii%
0.22%
b"4b%
0.10%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
b'"bb%
0.00%
0.25%
0.00%
1.60%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.2.15 Transmission System Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Transmission System and for the light weighted and
compounded Transmission System is provided in Figure 4.2-2. The "Steel & Iron"
content category was reduced by more than 10%, while "Magnesium" and "Plastic"
increased by 22% and 2.6%, respectively.
-------
Baseline Transmission System
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 394
Total Mass Reduced Transmission System
Transmission System
Material Analysis
Transmission System
Material Analysis
• 2-Hj.iWe.
! A JT ~jr
5. Siss
Svahe-
60.4%
13.5%
20.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.5%
4.8%
0.0%
0.7%
87,743
19.592
29.301
0.000
0.000
0,631
6.945
0.000
1.010
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2, H.S, Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5, Foam/Carpet
6, Rubber
7, Plastic
3, Glass
9. Other
49.8%
8.9%
11.8%
21.5%
0.0%
0.5%
7.4%
0.0%
0.0%
51.722
9.259
12.213
22.355
0.000
0.504
7.714
0.000
0.015
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
145,276 TOTAL
100%
103.782 TOTAL
Figure 4.2-2: Calculated Transmission System Baseline Material and Total Material Content
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 395
4.3 Body System Group -B- (Interior)
Body System Group -B- includes the subsystems shown in Table 4.3-1. The largest mass
contributors are the Seating, Interior Trim, and Instrument Panel/Console Subsystems. As
seen in Table 4.3-25, a substantial amount of mass (34.02 kg) is reduced from Body
System Group -B-. This provides a cost increase of $127.23 and an increase of $3.74 per
kg. The largest contributor of this mass and cost reduction is the Seating Subsystem,
followed by the Interior Trim and the Instrument Panel Subsystems.
Table 4.3-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Body System Group -B-
C/3
%
(D
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
00
05
06
07
10
12
20
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Body Group B
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Sys:em &.
Subsystem
Mass
*kn*
^y
56.545
4.784
14.516
120.690
30.837
19.645
247.017
2454
10.07%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 396
Table 4.3-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for Body System Group -B-
CO
I
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
I
00
05
06
07
10
12
20
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
DescripBn
Body Group B
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea Level
Se'ec:
X
Mass
ReducSon
iTffl
2.06
6.00
4.72
19.2
6.82
1.26
34.0
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
'«• »
$6.84
$6.66
$32.23
-$127.89
-$35.29
-$3.12
-$127.23
(Increase)
Average
Cor:'
Kiogram
S/kg
$3.32
-
$6.84
-$6.68
-$5.17
-$2.47
-$3.74
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
ReducSon
•%'
3.65%
-
32.48%
15.87%
22.13%
6.42%
13.77%
VehKte
Mass
ReducSon
'%'
0.08%
0.00%
0.19%
0.78%
0.28%
0.05%
1.39%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
<2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Body "B" System Material
Analysis
25.2%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
9.6%
7.7%
19.0%
0.0%
38.1%
100%
Material Categories:
62.227 1. SteelS Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
1.111 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
23.694 5. Foam/Carpet
18.898 6. Rubber
47.010 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Copper
94.077 9. Other
247.017 TOTAL
Figure 4.3-1: Calculated Material Content for the Body System -B- Base BOM
4.3.1 Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
4.3.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Chevrolet Silverado uses a conventional interior trim package as well as upgrade
packages. Considerable focus has been paid to the interior regarding the different types of
materials used: plastic, rubber, cloth, leather, and steel. As with many of today's vehicle
manufacturers, the larger amount of the vehicle sought for weight reductions are those
areas which can do so without sacrificing looks, comfort, or performance.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 397
Table 4.3-3: Sub-subsystem Breakdown for Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
CO
^
O)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 398
4.3.1.2 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Industry trends for mass reduction in the interior include many different considerations
due to the fact that the interior trim is made up of many different components and
materials. Among the ways to reduce mass includes reducing the density of the vinyl trim
or the thickness of the vinyl trim. Mass density can be reduced by using PolyOne®
foaming additives during the injection molding process. Using carbon fiber as a
replacement for vinyl trim results in mass reduction, although doing so will add cost to
the interior due to carbon fiber's limited availability and raw material cost. Products and
techniques using light-weight wood, wood fiber, or foam with a laminated interior
surface treatment also involve added processing.
PolyOne is a microcellular foam injection molding process for thermoplastics materials
that injects a foaming agent into the plastic during the injection stage of the molding
process. PolyOne is used in many applications, automotive, medical and the packaging
industry. The process is currently used by major OEM's. The quality advantages of the
PolyOne Process are complemented by certain direct economic advantages, including the
ability to produce 20-33% more parts per hour on a given molded machine then current
production methods, and the ability to mold parts on lower tonnage machines as a result
of the viscosity reduction.
PolyOne has a foaming agent incorporated into pellets which can be added directly into a
standard mold machine plastic hopper and mixed with base material plastic pellets to
provide the proper ratio of foaming agent to the base material. PolyOne can be used on
Class "A" surfaces. All parts were quoted with a 10% mass reduction.
PolyOne Corporation is a global supplier of polymer materials, services, and solutions.
They also specialize in performance materials, colors and additives, thermoplastic
elastomers, coatings and resins, and inks, among other things. The industries they serve
include building and construction, electrical and electronics, healthcare, industrial,
packaging, and transportation.
Of particular interest to this study is PolyOne's OnCap™ Chemical Foaming Agents
(CFAs), which is a part of its OnCap Additives product line. This line is part of
PolyOne's Global Color, Additives and Inks business unit. In typical industry use, these
CFAs provide a multitude of benefits to improve polymer processing in a variety of
situations. They can also reduce the weight of the plastic part to which they are added.
CFAs are formulated products that will decompose in a polymer during processing at a
specific temperature and liberate a gas that will form a controlled cellular structure in the
solid phase of the polymer.[39]
39 PolyOne® presentation information provided by PolyOne
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 399
PolyOne OnCap™ CFA Solutions
Image 4.3-2: Sample Part Cross Section View
(Source: PolyOne presentation information)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 400
Image 4.3-3: Sample Part Front Face View of Class "A" Surface with PolyOne
(Source: FEV, Inc. photograph of part supplied by PolyOne)
PolyOne's OnCap CFA additive family of density reduction and anti-sink technologies
provide customized solutions enabling you to reduce scrap rates caused by sink marks
and become cost effective by off-setting resin costs. OnCap CFA technology has been
tested and proven and is compatible across a wide range of polymers.
OnCap CFA will positively impact cost in the following ways:
Reduce Part Weight Without compromising performance[40]:
The most direct way that reducing your part density will improve your profitability, is by
displacing resin costs.
Improved Production Efficiencies:
• Density reductions typically range from 10-50%.
• Operational savings through less scrap
• Redesign for better utilization of the OnCap™ product.
• Reduced Scrap- more profits derived from increased part quality.
• Density Reduction- Resin Cost off-set, competitive advantage for new and
existing business.
Examples: automotive parts such as dash frames, and fan guards can achieve a
considerable weight reduction.
40 (Source: http://www.polvone.com/en-us/docs/Documents/OnCap%20Chemical%20Foamins%20Asents.pdf)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 401
Image 4.3-4: Sample part front face view
(PolyOne® presentation information provided by PolyOne)
Image 4.3-5: Silverado IP Main Molding
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Why OnCap Foaming Agents? OnCap Foaming Agents grow the bottom line by:
• Reducing Material Usage
Customers have achieved up to 50% reductions in material usage while maintaining
finished part integrity.
• Finished Part Weight Reduction
Reduced weight of finished products can improve fuel efficiency and reduce shipping
costs.
• Improving Quality
Sink mark surface defects are minimized due to consistent mold cavity pressure
provided by OnCap Foaming Agents.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 402
• Improving Production Efficiencies
OnCap Foaming Agents promote increased nucleation to reduce cooling times and
thereby reduce production cycle times.
• Helping Customers Grow
Many industries are required to reduce the weight of their products because of
government mandates or just a desire to reduce shipping costs. OnCap Foaming
Agents help customers achieve these goals.
• Reduces scrap caused by sink marks or unfilled areas of the products
Less scrap results in increased profitability and competitiveness.
PolyOne's CFAs can effectively reduce the mass of plastic parts both with and without
Class "A" surface finishes. For this study, however, the most significant advantage of
CFAs is the former. Therefore, PolyOne's CFAs were applied to numerous Class "A"
surface-finished plastic parts in this study. 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.
The use of CFAs for light-weighting must be addressed on a part-by-part basis. Several
variables must be taken into account for each component to understand the impact mass
reduction will have on the final part's processing and performance. A feasibility
breakdown provided by PolyOne is presented here, indicating guidelines and stipulations
for the most common plastics used in the Chevrolet Silverado.
20% Talc-filled Polypropylene (PP-GF20)
• Talc can influence the success of the CFA. Based on the grade and particle size
talc can improve cell size or potentially increase the rate of splay. The grain can
help reduce the visual defects.
• Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the
geometry of and the gate location on the part.
• Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range at 1-3% LDR.
• Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class "A"
surface finish.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 403
Due to polypropylene's shrinkage rate, the CFA will fill the cavity: weight loss is
reduced due to the complete fill of the cavity.
Aids in sink mark removal at lower 0.5-1% CFA loadings.
PolyOne CFA CC10117068WE or CC10122763WE would be suggested for
polypropylene.
Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options
should be explored.
Polycarbonate / Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (PC/ABS)
• This resin could achieve a 10-15% weight reduction. Careful selection of the
proper CFA is required since the alloyed blends can have different ratios. Testing
with the high heat CC10153776WE and CC10117068WE would be
recommended.
• Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain above 10%. This will depend
upon the geometry of and the gate location on the part.
• Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options
should be explored.
Polyamide 66 (PA66)
• Processing with the high heat CFA CC10153776WE would be recommended.
• Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the
geometry of and the gate location on the part.
• Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range.
• Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class "A"
surface finish.
20% Glass-filled Polyamide (PA-GF20)
• Processing with the high heat CFA CC10153776WE would be recommended.
• Glass will reduce the success of the CFA due to potential cell coalescence causing
larger voids.
• Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the
geometry of and the gate location on the part.
• Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 404
Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class "A"
surface finish.
15% Glass-filled / 25% Mineral-filled Polyamide 6 (15G/25M PA6)
• Processing with the high heat CFA CC10153776WE would be recommended.
• Glass will reduce the success of the CFA due to potential cell coalescence causing
larger voids.
• Class "A" surface finish can be difficult to maintain. This will depend upon the
geometry of and the gate location on the part.
• Potential weight reduction would be more in the 5-10% range.
• Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class "A"
surface finish.
High-Density Polyethylene / Polypropylene (HDPE/PP)
• This resin could achieve a 10-15% weight reduction. CC10117068WE and
CC10122763WE are potential CFAs depending upon part geometry.
• Class A surface finish can be difficult to maintain above 10%. This will depend
upon the geometry of and the gate location on the part.
• Surface texture can potentially hide the effects of a CFA so various grain options
should be explored.
• Above 10% will begin to reduce the physical properties and affect the Class "A"
surface finish.
PolyOne's Chemical Foaming Agents are currently used in production in industrial
housings and structural foam applications, and the automotive industry. Its CFAs are also
currently used by many automotive OEMs.
In addition to PolyOne, some other ideas that were considered for weight reduction on
the interior trim were 3M™ Glass Bubbles and the MuCell® process by Trexel. 3M Glass
Bubbles are engineered hollow glass microspheres that are alternatives to conventional
fillers and additives such as silicas, calcium carbonate, talc, and clay for many demanding
applications. These low-density particles are used in a wide range of industries to reduce
part weight, lower costs and enhance product properties.
The spherical shape of 3M Glass Bubbles offers a number of important benefits,
including higher filler loading, lower viscosity/improved flow, and reduced shrinkage and
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 405
warpage. It also helps the 3M Glass Bubbles blend readily into compounds, and makes
them adaptable to a variety of production processes, including spraying, casting and
molding. In addition, they offer greater survivability under demanding processing
conditions, such as injection molding, and also produce stable voids, which results in low
thermal conductivity and a low dielectric constant. The chemically stable soda-lime-
borosilicate glass composition of 3M Glass Bubbles provides excellent water resistance,
to create a more stable emulsion. They are also non-combustible and non-porous, so they
do not absorb resin. And, their low alkalinity gives 3M Glass Bubbles compatibility with
most resins, stable viscosity and long shelf life.
The MuCell microcellular foam injection molding process for thermoplastics materials
provides unique design flexibility and cost savings opportunities not found in
conventional injection molding. The MuCell process allows for plastic part design with
material wall thickness optimized for functionality and not for the injection molding
process. The combination of density reduction and design for functionality often results
in material and weight savings. Suitable for recycling within the original polymer
classification and allowing re-grind material to reenter the process flow.
The numerous cost and processing advantages have led to rapid global deployment of the
MuCell process primarily in automotive, consumer electronics, medical device,
packaging, and consumer goods applications.
4.3.1.3
Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.3-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem
Subsystem
Interior Trim and Ornamentation
Subsystem
All plastic trim
All plastic trim
All plastic trim
Mass-Reduction Idea
Use Polyone® foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
Use MuCell gas process
Estimated Impact
10% Mass Reduction
8.55% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foam ing agent or gas
products, has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with
care, high cost
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
4.3.1.4
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected for the Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
were those to use the PolyOne foaming process for Class "A"-surfaced and Non-Class
"A" surface parts for injection-molded parts. All PolyOne deductions are conservative at
a 10% mass reduction per part. With proper engineering of the parts, however, up to 30%
weight reduction may be achieved.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 406
Table 4.3-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
I
03
03
03
03
03
03
en
cr
1
3
00
05
05
05
05
05
cr
O5
ffi"
3
00
00
05
06
07
13
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
JBojdj/M3rpjj£jE3^^
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Front RH & LH Door Trim Panel
Rear Door or Rear Quarter Trim Panel
Pillar Trim Lower
Pillar Trim Upper
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use Polyone foaming agent
4.3.1.5 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
For the sub-subsystems, main floor trim, NVH pads, headliner assembly, sun visors and
floor mats-OEM, no weight savings were taken. In the case of the headliner the electrical
wiring weight can be reduced in another sub-subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 407
Table 4.3-6: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Interior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem.
•3
I
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
Sub- Subsystem
66
01
02
03
"04
05
06
07
OS
09
DescripSon
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Main Floor Trim
NVH Pads
Headliner Assembly
Sun Visors
Front RH & LH Door Trim Panel
Rear Door or Rear Quarter Trim Panel
Pillar Trim Lower
Pillar Trim Upper
Floor Mats -OEM
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Setec
A
Mass
Raducfon
'kg' (i)
0.000
0.000
0.000
o'.ooo
0.843
0.550
0.528
0.141
0.000
2.062
(Decrease)
Cos Impac
T{2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$"6'.66
$2.06
$1.62
$2.81
$0.35
$0.00
$6.84
(Decrease)
Average
COS/
«, cqr=~
S/kg
-
-
—
$2.44
$2.95
$5.32
$2.46
-
$3.32
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducton
"%•
-
-
-
-
8.55%
9.69%
9.46%
4.97%
-
13.77%
Vehkte
Mass
Reducfcn
•%•
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.08%
(1> "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.3.2 Sound and Heat Control Subsystem
4.3.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As Table 4.3-7 shows, the Sound and Heat Control Subsystem included the heat
insulation shields - engine bay and underfloor; noise insulation - engine Bay and
underfloor; heat shield - transmission; and heat shield - fuel tank.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 408
Table 4.3-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Cfl
•-=
(£
(D
3
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
06
06
06
06
06
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Description
Sound and Heat Control Subsystem (Body)
Heat Insulation Shields - Engine Bay & Underfloor
Noise Insulation, Engine Bay and Underfloor
Heat Shield -Transmission
Heat Shield - Fuel Tank
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
0.899
1.382
0.382
2.121
4.784
247.017
2454
1.94%
0.19%
4.3.2.2
Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
Due to the large amounts of heat given off by the engine, heat shields are used to protect
components and bodywork from heat damage. Along with protection, effective heat
shields can provide a performance benefit by reducing under-hood temperatures,
therefore reducing the air intake temperatures. There are two main types of automotive
heat shields: rigid and flexible. The rigid heat shields, once made from solid steel, are
now often made from aluminum. Some high-end rigid heat shields are made out of
aluminum sheet or other composites, with a thermal barrier, to improve the heat
insulation. A flexible heat shielding is normally made from thin aluminum foils, sold
either flat or in a roll, and is formed at installation. High-performance, flexible heat
shields sometimes include extras, such as insulation. The Silverado has thin aluminum
and steel heat shields. Therefore, no reduction was taken.
4.3.3 Sealing Subsystem
4.3.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.3-8 displays what is included in the Sealing Subsystem: Front Side Door
Dynamic Weather-strip and Static Sealing.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 409
Table 4.3-8: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Sealing Subsystem
t/3
*-=:
(n_
(D
3
03
03
03
Subsystem
07
07
07
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
Description
Sealing Subsystem
Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Static Sealing
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
4.897
9.619
14.516
247.017
2454
5.88%
0.59%
4.3.3.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado has typical sealing/weather-stripping. Automotive sealing/weather-
stripping must endure extreme hot and cold temperatures, be resistant to automotive
liquids such as oil, gasoline, and particularly windshield washer fluid, and must resist
years of full sun exposure. Automotive sealing/weather-stripping is commonly made of
EPDM, TPE, TPO polymers. Image 4.3-6 shows the Chevrolet Silverado's door seal.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 410
Image 4.3-6: Chevrolet Silverado Door Seal
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.3.3.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Mass reduction industry trends for sealing/weather-stripping show that TPE-v or TPV
thermoplastic polyurethanes, thermoplastic co-polyester and thermoplastic polyamides
can be used to replace EDPM. These materials are 10% to 25% lighter.
4.3.3.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.3-9 contains the ideas considered for mass reductions on the Sealing Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 411
Table 4.3-9: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Sealing Subsystem
Subsystem
Sealing Subsystem
All seals
Mass-Reduction Idea
Combo ldeaofTPV&
PolyOne®
Estimated Impact
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
32% Mass Reduction
TPV- faster cycle times, less capital equipment PolyOne-
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
All seals
All seals
TPV
Use Polyone® foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
25% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
8.55% Mass Reduction
TPV-faster cycle times, less capital equipment
Can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foam ing agent or gas
products, has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with
All seals
Use MuCell gas process
10% Mass Reduction
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
4.3.3.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Jyco thermoplastic vulcanizates TPV weather-stripping materials and technologies were
selected in consideration of weight savings and cost savings with a lighter, greener, cost
effective product. Figure 4.3-2 shows the TPV process foot print as compared to the
EDPM process. It takes less energy to produce TPV then EDPM also less crap, labor,
manufacturing and mold times as well as smaller line sizes and more environmentally
friendly. Jyco supplies many different customers, such as General Motors, Volkswagen,
Daimler, Volvo, and Daewoo.[4IJ
A new, better material: TPV. Jyco was founded by pioneers of seal design
and processing technologies that have become industry standards. The
Team was a multi year recipient of the GM Supplier of the Year Award, as
well as top technology awards from other Fortune 50 industry leaders. Jyco
was founded on the potential of a relative new material to weathersealing, a
plastic-rubber compound known as thermoplastic vulcanizates (TPV). This
material promised advantages over traditional thermoset rubbers: processing
with the ease and economies of plastic, reducing weight and costs, yet
performing as well or better than the EPDM rubber that dominated the
weather sealing business. In 2000, TPV seals were being used by several
Japanese and European OEMs, but the compound was virtually unknown to
the North American automotive industry. From its inception, Jyco structured
its manufacturing operations around state-of-the-art TPV processing
equipment, By doing so: they avoided the capital burden, transitional pains,
and retooling that other sealing suppliers face in adapting EPDM systems to
processing TPV.
Greener seals: Unlike EPDM, TPV is recyclable. Production scrap can be
directly reprocessed. The manufacturing process itself is free of VOCs and
participate emissions characteristic of EPDM processing.
Nimbleness: As a lean, technology-driven company with few layers at the
top end - general managers and department heads report directly to the
CEO and COO - Jyco's nimble structure has always allowed the company to
incorporate process improvements, respond to market changes, and develop
new products with exceptional speed.
41 All presentation information supplied by Jyco
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 412
Lead by Jyco, TPV sealing systems quickly gained the interest of North American OEMs.
Through innovations such as their own JyFlex"1'' TPV compound, product design and foam
extrusions. Jyco's annual revenues increased an average of 55% per year between 2001 and
2007. Jyco had become a global leader in TPV sealing technology for the automotive, with
joint venture operations in China. Europe and Latin America. The global automotive industry
recognized Jyco as the only TPV supplier TS/ISO/16949/9000 certified for design, testing and
manufacturing, as well as for innovations such as their JyGreerf'•' technology for recycling
rubber automobile tires into high performance TPV sealing system. The Society of Plastics
Engineers presented Jyco with their 2004 Environmental Innovation of the Year award. The
Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters honored Jyco with the "Canadian Automotive Supplier
Innovation" award in 2005. Frost & Sullivan has named JYCO the receipent of the 2009
North American Technology Innovation of the Year Award for Automotive Sealing
Technologies.
TPV w. EPDM
MANUFACTURING PROCESS FLOW
(0 JYCO
TPV -GREEN MANUFACTURING PROCESS & PRODUCTS
•Energy Usage
i, SObVA
-EPOU 250 bVA
•Emission! into Environment
-•mi, No VOCV & low carbon dioxide
-tpoi* VOC* & higher carbon dioxide
'-VclaUle Organic Compound
•Scrap
-TIM. 4% Soap-All scrap recyclable
-EPTJM Best-15% Scrap
•Extrusion Line
-iw 100ft
-EPOU 400ft
•Labor
Direct Supervision Mat Control
-rPV: 2 TPV: 1 TPW 1
-EPOH: 10 EPDht 3 EPDM: 2
•Material Movements
-TFV 290ft
-EPDU 930ft
•Manufacturing Time
-TPW. < t Hour
-EPOU: > 1 Day
•Mold Time
-TPV, 30 sec.
-EPOW 120 sec
Energy
Total
TPV. 4
FPDMr 15
EPDM
V' A
fr tf ft 0 ft 0
A Q : O O : U7 > A : O : O
The global leader in TPV solutions for a jtomotive sealing systems.
IYCO
Figure 4.3-2: Jyco TPV Footprint vs. EDPM
(Source.'Presentation information supplied by Jyco)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 413
Table 4.3-10: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Sealing Subsystem
en
a
CD
"63"
03
03
03
en
cr
•S3
a
d
lob"
07
07
07
en
rr
cn
CD
00
00
02
03
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
BodyGroupB
Sealing Subsystem
Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Static Sealing
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected lor Detail
Evaluation
Combo, Replace EDPMwithTPVS Use
PolyOne foaming agent
Combo, Replace EDPMwithTPVS Use
PolyOne foaming agent
4.3.3.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
Table 4.3-11 shows the weight and cost savings per the Sealing Subsystem.
Table 4.3-11: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Sealing Subsystem
fD
03
03
03
C/3
C
cr
fji
3
07
07
07
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
Descripxn
Sealing Subsystem
Front Side Door Dynamic Weatherstrip
Static Sealing
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Setec
A
Mass
Redudon
•kg' <„
1.589
3.126
4.715
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
'*"<2>
$10.86
$21.37
$32.23
(Decrease)
Average
CosV
Ktogram
S/kg
$6.83
$6,84
$6.84
(Decrease)
Sub- Subs./
Sub-Subs.
M3£=
Reduoon
'%'
32.45%
32.50%
32.48%
Vehicle
Mass
Redudon
'%'
0.06%
0.13%
0.19%
(1) 'V1 = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.3.4 Seating Subsystem
4.3.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.3-12 shows the sub-subsystems included in the Seating Subsystem are the front
driver seat, front passenger seat, rear 60% seat, rear 40% seat, and front center seat and
console.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 414
Table 4.3-12: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Seating Subsystem
C/3
'-=:
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 415
Image 4.3-7 (Left): Front Seating with Center Console
Image 4.3-8 (Right): Front and Passenger Seats are Common
(Sources: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.3-9: Front and Passenger Seat Back Frame
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 416
Image 4.3-10: Front and Passenger Seat Bottom Frame
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.3-11 (Left): Front Center Console Seat
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.3-12 (Right): Front Center Console Seat Floor Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 417
Image 4.3-13: Front Center Console Seat Middle or Tub Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.3-14: Front Center Console Seat Middle or Tub Cover Bracket
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The rear seat is split into two parts: the 60% portion is split to include the center arm rest
section while the 40% portion composes the remainder of the rear seat.
Image 4.3-15 through Image 4.3-21 show the front seat and seat frames for the Chevrolet
Silverado.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 418
Image 4.3-15: Rear 60% and 40% Seat
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.3-16: Rear 60% Seat
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 419
Image 4.3-17: Rear 60% Seat Back Frame
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.3-18: Rear 60% Seat Bottom Frame
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 420
Image 4.3-19 (Left): Rear 40% Seat
Image 4.3-20 (Center): Rear 40% Seat Back Frame
Image 4.3-21 (Right): Rear 40% Seat Bottom Frame
(Images 4.3-19 through 4.3-21 Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.3.4.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
More and more emphasis is placed on reducing seat weight for that which they contribute
to the overall vehicle, especially within the high weight of the frames. Therefore, many
different types of seat frame constructions are emerging, such as those of high-strength
steel, carbon fiber, plastics, cast magnesium, and aluminum. There are magnesium and
plastic seat frames in some production vehicles today.
Some seat suppliers have been reluctant to the changeover for different reasons, such as a
supplier that might have its 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.
The cost fluctuation of plastic, magnesium and other lightweight materials are too
volatile for some suppliers. Magnesium was more than $6.00 per kg in 2008, as low as
$2.10 in 2007, and recently it has been $4.67. Also, some seat suppliers are not concerned
with weight over cost. Carry-over seat construction is another reason that new
technologies are not being used. The cost of design and testing can add considerable
costs. Some OEMs are currently pulling seat planning in house to better control the
design and build of lighter-weight seats. As new seat suppliers emerge with proven
lightweight seat technologies and manufacturing methods, the thought process will again
change.
Regarding the amount of attention seat frames have received in recent years as targets for
weight reduction, this is largely due to all the stampings and weldings in the frames. This
weight can be considerable, which is why new alternatives are being sought.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 421
4.3.4.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Reviewing the best option for removing seat frame mass, an in-depth study has to be
done looking at current materials and processes. Plastic is less weight and cost, but up till
now unproven for durability, safety, and overall performance. BASF® Plastics and
Chemical Company has come up with a production plastic seat bottom and a tested seat
back frame. Welded stamped and steel tube is proven, and is today's market mainstay.
While it is lower in cost, it is not the best option for reducing weight. Welded stamped
aluminum provides a good weight savings, but aluminum is expensive in comparison to
alternative material selections and manufacturing costs. Cast aluminum offers the weight
savings again, but not the best cost savings-to-weight ratio. Carbon fiber offers the best
weight savings, but its availability and cost of material and manufacturing put this
technology out of reach for the near-term. Cast magnesium offers a proven track record
for durability and safety as well as considerable weight loss. Examples currently in
production include the seat base/cushion supports on the Ford F150, Explorer and Flex.
Other ideas for seat weight reductions include using different types of foam for the seats,
such as soy or pine wood. After reviewing these types of foam, however, it was
determined that they did not provide a substantial weight savings. They also are not
readily available for mass production. The costs of these materials are also very high.
Their manufacturing process may actually add to greenhouse gas emissions, as well as
being non-recyclable. Different types of manufacturing and welding were looked at as
well for reducing weight and cost.
When analyzing the various options for seat mass reduction, the same solution was used
for all the seat frames, using the Meridian die cast process. Table 4.3-13 shows ideas
considered.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 422
Table 4.3-13: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Seating
Subsystem
Subsystem
Searing Subsystem
All plastic trim
All plastic trim
All plastic trim
Front& Pass seat
Ail 'steel vvelded seat frames
Arm rest frame hinge RH & LH
All seating
All seating
All seating
All seating
All seating
All seating
All seating
Rear
all seats
all seats
Arm rest
Arm rest
Arm rest
Arm rest
Arm rest
Arm rest
Mass-Reduction Idea
Use Poiyone® foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
Use MuCell gas process
Use BASF® Plastic for both
seat back and bottom frames
Die cast nag fro n Meridian®
Steel to Aluminum
Composite Seat frames
((Blow Mold))
Composite Seat Frame
((Carbon))
Reduce size of recliner
mechanism - use Lear EVO
recliner
Use pine wood based foam
Use so. :;asedfoa."i
Dip seat springs - eiiminate
plastic protector
Eliminate foam backing on
fabric
Hydro-form seat frame tubes
Make seatfrme out of Mag
Thrixomold
Cast aluminum frame
Use Ai urn. Sq.S round tube
Composite ((Blow Mold))
Composite ((Carbon))
Make plastic
Use AHSS on arm rest bracket
Use lightening holes in arm
rest bracket
Estimated Impact
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
50% Mass Reduction
17 - 50% Mass Reduction
27% Mass Reduction
25% Mass Reduction
30% Mass Reduction
20% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
5% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10-15% Mass Reduction
20-25% Mass Reduction
15-20% Mass Reduction
15-20% Mass Reduction
25% Mass Reduction
30% Mass Reduction
25% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
5% Mass Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
can do class A surface. No added capital cost
Density of glass is higherweight then foaming
agent or gas products, has to be premixed with
plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
can! do class A surface. Added capital cost
Seat bottom is in production in an Opal vheical and
the seat back has pass OEM testing
No stampings, no ecoat. no welding
Cost more harder to stamp
Material cost more, tooling cost less, more testing
then steel frames
Material cost more, tooling cost less, more testing
then steel frames, slower cycle times
smaller size, lighter weight
High cost of material, short in supply
High cost of Material, short in supply
Not all seats designed the same and might not
apply, added process and cost
Stiffen seat feel, degrade to original part
High cost of tooling, unable to spot weld, high
burden costs
good proocity, fast cycle time, lower tooling cost
Cost more for material, harder to weld
Cost no re for material, harder to weld
Material cost more, tooling cost less, more testing
then steel frames
Material cost more, tooling costless, moretesiing
then steel frames, slower cycle times
higher cost in material, No welding needed, faster
cycle time for manufacturing
higher cost in material, thinner materila could be
used
added punches in die, easy to implament
4.3.4.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.3-14 contains the mass reduction ideas selected for the Seating Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 423
Table 4.3-14: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Seating Subsystem
CO
•&
CD
3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
00
10
To"
10
10
10
10
1
i
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 424
There are two basic types of magnesium molding: Thixomolding® and die-casting.
Thixomolding is a process of injection molding of magnesium chips as compared to
plastic injection molding. It has certain limitations, such as size of the part, cost of the
capital equipment, and availability of suppler to do larger parts.
One suppler in North America that has the equipment and the knowledge to do
Thixomolded parts is Phillips Medisize. Image 4.3-22 through Image 4.3-24 show some
of the Thixomolding equipment, products, and capabilities of Phillips Medisize.
Hopper
Product
Motor
Slurry
Temperature
(560 - 595° C)
Heater Bands
High Speed
Injection Unit
Image 4.3-22: Thixomlding Machine Process
(Source: Phillips Medisize)
Image 4.3-23: Thixomolding Machine
(Source: Phillips Medisize)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 425
Thixomolding Attributes
• Complex parts with internal actions (lifters) more favorable
• Wall thicknesses of less than 0.100" more favorable
• Parts that require holding air pressure without leaking more favorable
• Tighter tolerances more favorable
• Parts with features requiring draft of less than one degree more favorable
• Molds are similar to plastic injection molding
• Trim dies are required
• Typical tooling will yield 150,000 cycles
• Molds provide superior surface finishes
Image 4.3-24: Thixomolding Part
(Source: Phillips Medisize)
Image 4.3-25 is a single-piece magnesium Lexus seat back created with the
Thixomolding process.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 426
Image 4.3-25: Thixomolding Lexus Seat Back Example
(Source: Thixomolding)
The other main type of magnesium processing is die casting. The largest magnesium
diecast parts supplier in North America is Meridian®, which was consulted on the
Silverado project to get the best possible outcome for cost and weight loss.
The die casting of magnesium is a process that Meridian has excelled in for years.
Meridian is more than a die-casting company; they are driven to providing innovative and
effective automotive solutions. The product offering is a result of the synergy created
when the inherent properties of magnesium are combined with the design and
manufacturing expertise of our global team. Some of Meridian's capabilities and
qualifications include:
• Casting capability for aluminum and magnesium alloys
• The world's largest producer of magnesium components
• More than 30 years of experience assisting OEMs designing cost effective
components
• Proven track record in successful launches of the most challenging die castings
• More than 1,600 dedicated employees
• More than 650,000 ft2 of manufacturing space
• Fifty-six cold chamber die-casting machines from 500 to 4,000 tons
• More than 40,000 net metric tons of product shipped annually
Automobile manufacturers worldwide are increasingly turning to light-weight
magnesium and magnesium alloy parts ways to reduce overall vehicle weight and
improve fuel economy. OEMs have accelerated efforts for light-weighting to meet fuel
economy targets. Meridian has a long-standing tradition of partnering with their OEM
customers to develop innovative magnesium applications. Its product development team
has introduced several structural magnesium "industry firsts," including the Ford F150
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 427
bolster, the Dodge Viper front of dash, the Lincoln MKT lift gate, and multiple GM
instrument panels. Table 4.3-15 shows some of the products manufactured by Meridian.
Table 4.3-15: Cast Magnesium Products by Meridian
(All presentation material supplied by Meridian)
CORE PRODUCTS
COMPONENTS
SELECT PLATFORMS
INSTRUMENT PANELS
(37% of 2012 Revenue)
Instrument Panels
Front-of-Dash
GM Acadia, Traverse,
Enclave
Cadillac CTS
Jeep Wrangler
GM Maiibu
*• Range Rover Sport
*• Jaguar Sand X Type
* Mercedes R Class
> BMW 73, Z4, X5, X6
*• Dodge Durango, Jeep
Grand Cherokee
POWERTRAIN
(21% of 2012 Revenue)
1 •
Transfer Cases
Oil Pans
Transmission Cases
Oil Fill Adaptors
Rear and Front Adapter Plates
Engine Mounts/Cradle
Ford F-Serres,
Expedition, Navigator
Honda 6-speed
Volkswagen 5-speed
Audi 5-speed
Nissan GTR
* Mercedes 7-speed
automatic
•• BMW N52 3.0L
*• Dodge Ram
> Chevrolet Corvette
•• Cadillac CTS
FECs&GORs
(11% of 2012 Revenue)
Front End Carriers
Grille Opening Reinforcements
Ford Super Duty
Ford F150
Lincoln MKT
Range Rover Sport
Volvo S60, V60
* Tesla Models
»• Ford Flex
Other
(6% of 2012 Revenue)
»• Liftgates
> Engine Cradles
> Spare Tire Carriers
^ Console/Media Center Structures
* Convertible Headers
* Ford Mustang
•• Lincoln MKT
*• Ford Mondeo
*• Jeep Wrangler
»- Chrysler Vehicles|
Bracketry
(10% of 2012 Revenue)
'
'If/
Seats
(6% of 2012 Revenue)
PL fP '"H
k v r ^af
»> Pedals
+ Shifters
> Roof Brackets
> Steering Columns
> Front Seat Frames
> Rear Seat Frames
*• GM Corvette
> Honda Pilot
*• Audi 5-Speed
^ Ford F-Series,
Expedition, Navigator
> Dodge Ram
* Ford Explorer,
Mountaineer, Flex
*• Ford F-Series,
Expedition, Navigator
> Lincoln MKT
Steering
(6% of 2012 Revenue)
Steering Wheels
> Chrysler Platforms
^ Ford Fiesta
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 428
Cold chamber machines are used when the casting alloy cannot be used in hot-chamber
machines. These include aluminum, zinc alloys with a large composition of aluminum,
magnesium, and copper. The process for these machines starts with melting the metal in a
separate furnace. Then a precise amount of molten metal is transported to the cold-
chamber machine where it is fed into an unheated shot chamber (or injection cylinder).
This shot is then driven into the die by a hydraulic or mechanical piston. This biggest
disadvantage of this system is the slower cycle time due to the need to transfer the molten
metal from the furnace to the cold-chamber machine.
Figure 4.3-3 shows a schematic of a cold-chamber diecasting machine; Image 4.3-26 is
an actual cold chamber magnesium diecasting machine.
fc
SHOT
x\\\\\v
\
A LOWER
PLATEN
3~X
CHAMBER
POWER
CYLINDER
TRANSFER
TUBE
HOLDING FURNACE
Figure 4.3-3: Cold Chamber Magnesium Die Casting Machine
(Source: Google Images)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 429
Image 4.3-26: Cold Chamber Magnesium Die Casting Machine
(Source: Wikimedia Commons)
General Motors, in collaboration with Meridian Lightweight Technologies Inc.,
Strathroy, Ontario, Canada, and the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, has won a
$2.7 million Energy Department grant to explore magnesium die-casting technology. The
project is intended to develop an integrated super-vacuum die-casting process using a
new magnesium alloy to achieve 50% energy savings compared to the stamping and
joining process currently used to manufacture car doors. By substituting steel inner
panels with thin-walled magnesium castings, car doors could weigh 60% less, resulting in
significant fuel economy improvements and carbon emission savings.
Meridian produced the 2013 GM Corvette seat back frame (Image 4.3-27) as well as seat
frames and components for the Ford Explorer and Ford F150.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 430
Image 4.3-27: Concept of the GM Corvette Seat Back Frame
(Source: meridian-mag.com)
Image 4.3-28: Concept of the Silverado Seat Back Frame
(Source: meridian-mag.com)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 431
Image 4.3-29: Concept of the Silverado Seat Bottom Frame
(Source: meridian-mag.com)
Magnesium is now the center of attention for the United States Automotive Materials
Partnership (USAMP). This initiative investigates ways to develop a family car that can
attain 2.9 L/100 km (80 mpg). The $10 million project involves the U.S. government,
automakers, suppliers, universities, and national laboratories.[42]
Plastic was also used for the seat back and bottom frames in the front driver and
passenger seats. BASF® has developed a continuous fiber reinforced plastic tape and
laminate that has been put into production on an Opal Astra vehicle front seat bottom
frame. BASF has also passed testing on this technology for the front seat back frames.
This breakthrough has taken the weight and cut it half or more with incorporation of trim
parts into the frame design. Image 4.3-30 shows the Opal Astra bottom seat frame.
Image 4.3-30: Opal Astra Seat Bottom Frame Using the BASF Laminate
(Source: BASF)
42 Source: Magnesium.com/data-bank
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 432
The laminate is made up of four, .25 mm layers of glass fibers and a matrix of PA6
Ultramid® that are consolidated into a tape or laminate. Image 4.3-31 shows before and
after the consolidation.
Glass fibers
matrix: PA6 Ultramid8
Before Consolidation
After Consolidation
Image 4.3-31: BASF Laminate
(Source: BASF)
Thermoplastic laminate based on
Ultramid® PA6 and glass fibers
Over molding material Ultramid®
PA6 short glass fiber material
Image 4.3-32: Opal Astra Front Seat Pan
(Source: BASF)
Image 4.3-33 shows the open injection mold tool with a piece of BASF laminate being
heated by an infrared (IR) heater.
-------
IR heater
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 433
laminates in open mold
Image 4.3-33: Injection Molding Operation with BASF Laminate
(Source: BASF)
BASF has used the laminate on the seat pan and the tape for applications on the seat back
frame (Image 4.3-34 and Image 4.3-35). The tapes are used for parts with areas of
highest local anisotropic load distribution (e.g., front seat back rests and the laminates are
used for predominantly closed areas, mechanical load rather evenly distributed e.g. seat
pans, rear seat backrests, vehicle floors. The advanced tapes and laminates can also be
used for structural automotive parts such as roof cross member, cross car beam, crash
extensions, fire wall, front end, structural floor, battery integration, and structural inserts
in the pillars and roof frame.
-------
Thermo-
plastic
laminate
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 434
Inl
M IJ
One Shot Draping
and Overmolding
Reinforced plastic
molding
Pultruded Tape
fully impregnated
Laying of tapes
(picture AFPT)
Reinforcer
Reinforced
plastic molding
Image 4.3-34: Laminate and Tape Applications
(Source: BASF)
Image 4.3-35 is an example of a prototype seat backrest with over molded tape
reinforcement. The seat back frame is not in production at this time, but has passed OEM
testing and will be launched into production in the near future.
Injection
molded PA6
UD-Fiber
reinforcement
Overmolded in
injection molding
process
UD- Fiber reinforcement in high loaded zones
Injection molding material in zones of medium load and functional integration
Image 4.3-35: Prototype-Seat Backrest with Over-Molded Tape Reinforcement Example
(Source: BASF)
The BASF Continuous Fiber Reinforced Engineering Plastics offer great weight savings.
With the injection molding process and added integrated parts into the frame over
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 435
conventional seat processing of multiple stampings and weldings, it can be a cost wash or
savings. Some considerations on the composites include:
• Thermoplastic composites have potential to replace automotive structural parts
• Design tools are available for the development of bespoke composite designs
• Indications are a 33% or more weight save in the case of a whole front seat
assembly
• The weight save provides an overall environmental advantage compared to steel
• Thermoplastic composites have potential to be produced via volume processes
• Costs are between Carbon Fiber and Steel, less with part integration
• Form and performance capabilities are good, stable and repeatable
• Composites enable "thin seat" styling cues and improved vehicle packaging
Table 4.3-16: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Seating Subsystem
w
m
fD
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsjistem
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
Description
Seating Subsystem
Seat Drivers Frt
Seat Passenger Frt
Rear 60% Seat
Rear 40% Seat
Frt center seat & console
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Setec
X
Mass
Reducion
'kg1 {1)
3.107
3.096
5.553
3.350
4.053
19.159
(Decrease)
C::: l~ps~
"*"<2>
415.00
415.36
443.73
423.87
429.93
-$127.89
(Increase)
Average
CosV
K cgr=~
S/kg
-$4.83
44.96
47.88
47.13
47.38
-$6.68
(Increase)
Sub- Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducian
*%*
9.78%
11.56%
21.47%
19.43%
21.27%
15.87%
Vehicle
Mass
Reducion
'%'
0.13%
0.13%
0.23%
0.14%
0.17%
0.78%
(1} "+" = mass decrease,"-" = mass increase
(2} "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 436
4.3.5 Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
4.3.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.3-17, the Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem has five sub-
subsystems containing mass. The primary ones are the Cross-Car Beam (CCB),
Instrument Panel Main Molding, and Closure Panel or Knee Bolster, Applied Decorative
Trim, and Switch Pack-Instrument Panel Sub-subsystems. The CCB includes the beam
and all welded brackets. It serves as the primary mounting structure for all Instrument
Panel sub-assemblies and modules like the HVAC main unit, radio, glove box, center
stack, and steering wheel. The instrument panel main molding includes the instrument
panel trim and other plastic covers and structural components that surround the dash.
Table 4.3-17: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
in
•*-*:
ij>
(D
3
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
12
12
12
12
12
12
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
Description
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Cross-Car Beam (IP)
Instrument Panel Main Molding
Closure Panel or Knee Bolster - (IP)
Applied Decorative Trim - (IP)
Switch Pack - Instrument Panel (IP)
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
11.923
7.215
6.936
2.804
1.959
30.837
247.017
2454
12.48%
1.26%
4.3.5.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado has a traditional instrument panel assembly (Image 4.3-36) with
a steel CCB that has welded brackets and fixtures (Image 4.3-37). Components are
mostly welded together with some use of fasteners.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 437
Image 4.3-36: Chevrolet Silverado Dash Assembly
(Source: A2macl database)
Image 4.3-37: Chevrolet Silverado Cross-Car Beam
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The instrument panel base dash, shown in Image 4.3-38 is a polypropylene and
polyethylene talc-filled blend. The dash inner support is pictured in Image 4.3-39.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
JuneS, 2015
Page 438
Image 4.3-38: Top of Dash, IP Base with Skin Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.3-39: Dash, Inner Support
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The instrument panel included the entire dash assembly along with the inner support and
the outer dash skin. The dash contained several storage compartments, cup holders, and
accessory power outlets. While the center stack had some non-Class "A" parts made of
ABS, it is mostly composed of Class "A" surface parts made of talc-filled PP or nylon.
4.3.5.3 Mass reduction Industry Trends
The most notable opportunity for light-weighting the Instrument Panel Subsystem is with
the CCB. There are a variety of light-weighting technologies and ideas being applied to
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 439
CCBs throughout the industry. Traditionally, CCBs have been rolled steel products, but
this is starting to transform. Mubea, Inc. is a company that specializes in Tailor Rolled
Products. They use specialty rolling equipment that varies the thickness of a single piece
so that thick sections are only applied where structurally necessary (Figure 4.3-4) other
sections of the same beam are manufactured to be thinner, thus saving weight compared
to a traditional CCB. Utilizing this technology not only saves weight, but the reduced raw
material cost will offset the additional processing cost, resulting in a near cost-neutral
exchange. Tailor Rolled Beams are currently used on the CCBs of BMW's 1-, 3-, 5-, and
7-Series vehicles.
Figure 4.3-4: Illustration of Mubea's Tailor Rolled Blank Process
(Source: Mubea http://www.stahl.karosserie-netzwerk.info/59.htm)
Automakers have also begun using alternative materials on cross-car beams. These
include the use of both aluminum and magnesium. The McLaren MP4-12C uses
aluminum CCBs, and the Jaguar XKR, BMW X5, and BMW X6 all use magnesium.
Chrysler has also embraced non-ferrous CCBs, using magnesium in the Dodge Caliber
and on numerous Jeep models. The magnesium CCB from the 2010 Dodge Caliber 2.4
R/T is shown in Image 4.3-40. This magnesium beam differs significantly in design and
manufacturing process than the baseline Silverado cross-car beam in Image 4.3-37. The
magnesium beam is a single-piece, diecast component, while the steel beam is a multi-
piece, rolled, stamped, and welded assembly.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 440
(a) Front View
(b) Back View
Image 4.3-40: Dodge Caliber Magnesium Cross-Car Beam
(Source: A2macl http://www.a2macl.com/Autoreverse/reversepart.asp?productid=150&dientid=l&producttype=2)
The Stolfig® Group in Europe conducted a comparison of three CCBs, as shown in
Image 4.3-41. The weight savings associated with aluminum and magnesium beams
compared to steel is immediately apparent, but of course this mass reduction is not
without a cost penalty.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 441
Material: Steel
Thickness: 1.0 mm
Mass: 8.54 kg
Material:
Aluminum
Thickness: 1.5 mm
Mass: 4.41 kg
Material:
Magnesium
Thickness: 1.7 mm
Mass: 3.22kg
Image 4.3-41: CCB Examples Compared by the Stolfig Group
(Source: Stolfig http://www.stolfig.com/lang/en/services/carbeam.php)
In the plastic components that make up the Instrument Panel Subsystem, PolyOne's
Chemical Foaming Agents (CFAs) are capable of reducing the mass of plastic
components while maintaining the Class "A" surface finish. PolyOne technology is
currently used in production in industrial housings and structural foam applications as
introduced in Section 4.3. SABIC® is a materials supplier with much of their focus on
plastics. They are one of the largest plastics suppliers in the world and provided
numerous mass reduction ideas across all systems of the vehicle, one of which is the
Instrument Panel Subsystem. SABIC's long glass fiber polypropylene (LGF-PP) Stamax®
is a material used on instrument panels to maintain rigidity requirements while also
reducing weight. According to SABIC, a mass reduction of 30% is attainable as the use
of LGF-PP allows the wall thickness of the Instrument Panel Dash Base to be reduced to
2 mm. The rigidity is maintained over a wide temperature range. Instrument Panel
thicknesses as thin as 1.8 mm are currently in production. LGF-PP has a higher modulus
than talc-filled PP, and the use of advanced engineering simulation (Autodesk®
Moldflow® software) and FEA allow SABIC to achieve such mass reduction.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 442
4.3.5.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Ideas that were considered to reduce the Instrument Panel Subsystem mass are compiled
in Table 4.3-18.
Table 4.3-18: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Instrument Panel
Subsystem
Subsystem
IP Subsystem
All plastic trim
All plastic trim
All plastic trim
IP
IP
IP
IP
Knee Bolster Reinforcement brkt
Mass-Reduction Idea
Use Polyone® foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
Use MuCell gas process
Make IP frame out of Mag
Thrixomold
Cast aluminum
Cast mag. ((High Pressure
Die Cast))
Use Alum. Sq.& round tube
Steel to plastic
Estimated Impact
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
40-50% Mass Reduction
20-30% Mass Reduction
40-50% Mass Reduction
15-20% Mass Reduction
56% Mass Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
can do class "A" surface, No
added capital cost
Density of glass is higher
weight then foaming agent or
gas products, has to be
premixed with plastic resin,
Handle with care, high cost
can't do class "A" surface,
Added capital cost
good proocity, fast cycle time,
lowertooling cost
Cost more for material,
harder to weld
No stampings, no ecoat, no
welding
Cost more for material,
harder to weld
Less tooling, weightless
4.3.5.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The sub-subsystems to which mass reduction ideas were applied are shown in Table
4.3-19. Magnesium was selected to be used for the CCB. While high in material cost,
magnesium offers a substantial weight savings and, after evaluation, was favorable to the
aluminum CCB. Magnesium beams are also in current use by multiple OEMs. The multi-
piece steel CCB was reduced to a two-component assembly with the magnesium beam.
The magnesium beam was manufactured using die casting by Meridian®, which lends
itself to component integration.
PolyOne's CFAs were applied to eligible plastic parts resulting in a 10% mass reduction
per part. PolyOne technology is currently used in production in industrial housings and
structural foam applications, as introduced in Section 4.3.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 443
Table 4.3-19: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Instrument Panel and
Console Subsystem
•S?
a
03
03
03
JD3
03
03
co
I"
I
00
12
12
H
Jl,
12
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
01
M
04
05
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Descriptor:
Body Group B
inst. Panel & Console
Cross Car Beam (IP)
Cross Car Beam
Cross Car Beam to Floor Brkt Cover
Instrument Panel Main Molding
Instrument Panel Main Molding trim
Closure Panel or Knee Bolster - (IP)
Closure Panel or Knee Bolster - (IP) trim
Knee Bolster Reinforcement brkt
Applied Decorative Trim - (IP)
Applied Decorative Trim - (IP) trim
Mass-Reducfon Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluafon
Cast Magnesium
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use Polyone foaming agent
Combo: Steel to plastic & Polyone foaming
agent
Use Polyone foaming agent
4.3.5.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.3-20 shows the weight savings for the ideas applied to the Instrument Panel and
other sub-subsystem as well as their cost impact. As seen in the first line of this table, the
magnesium CCB generates a cost increase of $38.15 and saves approximately 5.453 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 444
Table 4.3-20: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
CO
m
(D
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
12
12
12
12
12
12
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
Descriptor!
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Cross-Car Beam [IP]
Instrument Panel Main Molding
Closure Panel or Knee Bolster - (IP)
Applied Decorative Trim - (IP)
Switch Pack - Instrument Panel (IP)
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Leve!
Setec
X
Mass
Redudon
Tsfcn
5.453
0.535
0.664
0.136
0.037
6.824
(Decrease)
Ccrl'-pg"
f(2)
-$38.15
$1.40
$1.01
$0.25
$0.20
-$35.29
(Increase)
Average
Cos1
KSogram
S/kg
-$7.00
$2.61
$1.53
$"i.86
$5.38
-$5.17
(Increase)
Sub- Subs./
Sub- Subs.
Mass
Reducfcn
'%'
45.74%
7.41%
9.57%
4.84%
1.88%
22.13%
Vehicle
Mass
Reducfon
'%•
0.22%
0.02%
0.03%
0.01%
0.00%
0.28%
(1} "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.3.6 Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
4.3.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem breakdown and mass is shown in Table
4.3-21. The seat belt restraints did not have any mass reduced and were assumed to
remain unchanged going from the baseline to the redesign. An engineering analysis may
have to be performed on the seat belt reaction time for the new vehicle due to its overall
reduction in mass and different response to a crash, but such an investigation was beyond
the scope of this study.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 445
Table 4.3-21: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Cfl
'-i
fft
(D
3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
03
06
08
12
15
18
Description
Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
Seat Belt Assembly Front Row
Passenger Airbag / Cover Unit
Restraint Electronics
Seat Belts - Second Row
Curtain Airbag System
Tether Anchorages - Non Integrated
Steering Wheel Airbag
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
3.961
4.028
0.798
3.998
5.012
0.462
1.386
19.645
247.017
2454
7.95%
0.80%
4.3.6.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado represents a conservative approach to the design of the airbag
modules. In Image 4.3-42, the passenger side airbag is seen mounted to the IP. Steel is
used for nearly all of the housings and brackets as shown for the passenger airbag
housings in Image 4.3-43. The airbag material itself is a standard nylon fabric (used on
most airbags in the industry) and dual-stage airbag inflators are used. As a result of the
metal housings used in the baseline steering wheel airbag, numerous fasteners are
necessary to assemble components together as shown in Image 4.3-44. These include
screws, rivets, studs, nuts, and springs.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 446
1
Image 4.3-42: Silverado IP with Mounted Passenger Airbag
(Source: A2macl database)
Image 4.3-43: Silverado Passenger Airbag
(Source: A2macl database andFEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 447
Image 4.3-44: Silverado Steering Wheel Airbag Assembly and Various Fasteners
(Source: A2macl database)
4.3.6.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Plastic airbag housings are used on many high volume vehicle applications. DSM
Engineering Plastics is a global plastics supplier and specializes in metal to plastic
replacements in automotive applications. Their Akulon® products, glass fiber reinforced
glass-filled polyamide, have been used on many driver and passenger air bag housings for
all of the domestic OEMs over the last 10 years. An example of steel to plastic airbag
housing is shown in Image 4.3-45. As seen, the design remains quite similar when
changed from a multi-piece steel unit to a single-piece injection-molded housing. This
allows for easy integration into an existing product line. Image 4.3-46 displays a
conventional stamped steel airbag housing next to a plastic injection molded housing.
This resemblance reinforces the applicability of a plastic injection molded airbag for the
Silverado.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 448
Image 4.3-45: Passenger Side Airbag Housings, Fabricated Steel Assembly (left) and Injection
Molded Plastic Component (right)
(Source: Images Courtesy of DSM Engineering Plastics and Takata)
Image 4.3-46: Airbag Housing (left) and Plastic Airbag Housing Rendering (right)
(Sources: [Left] FEV, Inc., [Right] Courtesy of DSM Engineering Plastics)
Takata Corporation, a leading global supplier of automotive safety systems, provided
significant mass reduction ideas for the airbag modules for this study. The most
innovative of which was its Vacuum Folding Technology (VFT). VFT is a process that
allows the bags to be packed much more tightly than airbags traditionally have been by
pulling a vacuum during its packaging. The surrounding components (housings, covers,
etc.) can then be made smaller and, therefore, with lighter weight. A size reduction of 30-
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 449
60% is typically observed accompanied by a mass reduction of around 20-35%. A size
comparison of a standard airbag module versus a VFT is illustrated in Image 4.3-47.
Image 4.3-47: Standard Airbag Module (left) and VFT Module (right)
(Source: Courtesy ofTakata)
To keep the airbag tightly packed in a low-pressure state, it is sealed in a multi-layer
plastic foil as shown in Image 4.3-48. This foil is the only added component in a VFT
airbag module and weighs only a few grams.
-------
Lower Foil
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 450
Highly compressed
cushion pack
Cushion
Retention
Ring
Upper Foil
Image 4.3-48: VFT Airbag Foil
(Source: Courtesy ofTakata)
The VFT airbag meets all required FMVSS and other safety standards and won a Society
of Plastics Engineers award in 2010 and a Pace Award in the Process category for VFT in
April of 2011. This VFT technology has already been applied to the Ferrari 458 Italia and
McLaren MP4-12C (Image 4.3-49), which are both low-volume production vehicles. In
2012, a high-volume vehicle was released utilizing Takata's VFT airbag.
Image 4.3-49: VFT Airbag used in Ferrari 458 Italia (left) and McLaren MP4-12C (right)
(Source: Courtesy ofTakata)
In addition to mass reduction, Takata's VFT airbag module also provides styling benefits
allowing the steering wheel designer more freedom as the airbag module decreases in
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 451
size. Smaller airbag modules may also allow for a possible standardization of hardware as
surrounding components can become more common in size due to the now-predictable
size of a VFT airbag.
Takata shed light upon single-stage airbag inflators, which will likely replace dual-stage
inflators in the near future. Dual-stage inflators were used to vary the force and speed at
which the airbag deployed based on the size and orientation of the person in the seat. This
will no longer be necessary, however, as the airbags themselves are passively adapting to
the passenger allowing the inflators to revert to a smaller and lighter single-stage design
as shown in Image 4.3-49. The inflators shown are from the same vehicle generation and
application for the purposes of a direct and fair comparison. The dual-stage inflator in
picture (a) of Image 4.3-50 weighs 415 grams compared to 340 grams, which is the mass
of the single-stage inflator in image (b). The diameter of each inflator is the same, but the
height of the single-stage is 6.8 mm less than the dual-stage.
Image 4.3-50: Comparison of Dual- (left) and Single-Stage (right) Airbag Inflators
(Source: Photo Courtesy of Takata)
Takata has also been utilizing plastic airbag housings. They have worked with DSM
Engineering Plastics to use the 40% glass-filled polyamide (as shown previously for the
passenger airbag housing) for steering wheel airbag housings also. A high-volume
production example is shown in Image 4.3-51, which is currently being produced for the
Chevrolet Cruze. By going to a plastic housing, assembly becomes less complicated. A
plastic housing can snap to the mating plastic cover eliminating the need for fastening
components thus simplifying design, reducing mass and reducing cost. Image 4.3-52
shows a side by side comparison for the Silverado and the Cruze driver side airbags
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 452
Image 4.3-51: Steering Wheel Airbag Housing for Chevrolet Cruze
(Source: Part Courtesy ofTakata)
Image 4.3-52: Side-by-side Comparison of Chevrolet Silverado Steel Housing and the Chevrolet
Cruze Plastic Airbag Housing
(Source: A2macl database)
4.3.6.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Mass reduction ideas that were considered for the Occupant Restraining Device
Subsystem are shown in Table 4.3-22. Converting the Silverado's steel airbag housing
assemblies for the passenger side, driver's side knee, and steering wheel were all options
as proposed by DSM. Takata's ideas noted in the previous section were also all
considered along with PolyOne's Chemical Foaming Agent. Note that the estimated mass
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 453
reduction percentages in Table 4.3-24 are relative to the component(s) for that line item,
not relative to the entire airbag assembly.
Table 4.3-22: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Occupant
Restraining Device Subsystem
Mass-Reduction Idea
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Occupant Restraining
Replace steel assembly with
DSM's Akulon NylonS (40%
Remove steel housing, weights, cost
Housing, Passenger Side Airbag
30-40% Mass Reduction
Replace dual stage inflator
Allows for removal of one ingniton switch
Ignitor, Passenger Side Airbag
10% Mass Reduction
Replace steel assembly with
DSM's Akulon NylonS (40%
GF)
Takata Vacuum Folding
Technology (VFT) driver side
aj£ba
Replace dual stage inflator
Remove steel housing, weights, cost
Housing, Steering Wheel Airbag
30-40% Mass Reduction
Steering Wheel Airbag
5% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
Smaller package size allows for smaller housing
Igniter, Steering Wheel Airbag
Allows for removal of one ingniton switch
Replace bracket and spring
mechanism bymolding into
steering wheel airbag housing
fora single trace horn
Horn Activation, Steering Wheel
20-25% Mass Reduction
No stampings, no springs
Mounting brktfrom steel to
plastic
No stampings, welding, ecoat
Curtain Airbag System
15% Mass Reduction
4.3.6.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
All ideas that were considered for weight savings for this subsystem were applied as
shown in Table 4.3-23. Each idea applied were either being used in current high-volume
production or will be soon.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 454
Table 4.3-23: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Occupant Restraining
Device Subsystem
co
3
03
J03_
03
03
03
JPJL
03
03
—
—
Subsystem
20
20^
20
20
20
20
20
20
—
—~~
Sub-Subsystem
00
JPJL
03
06
08
•\2
15
Ml
~
—
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
OccijjpjanHRejita^^
Seat Belt Assembly Front Row
Passenger Airbag / Cover Unit
Passenger Airbag Housing
Restraint Electronics
Seat Belts - Second Row
Curtain Airbag System
Drivers side curtain airbag mounting brkt
Passenger side curtain airbag mounting brkt
Tether Anchorages -Non Integrated
Steering Wheel Airbag
Front Cover, Steering Wheel Airbag Assy
Airbag, Steering Wheel Airbag Assy
Airbag housing
Ignition Canister, Steering Wheel Airbag
Horn
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
Replace steel assembly with DSM's Akulon
Nylon6 (40% GF)
Replace steel with plastic PA66
Replace steel with plastic PA66
PolyOne foaming agent
Takata Vacuum Folding Technology (VFT)
driver side airbag
Replace steel assembly with DSM's Akulon
Nylon6 (40% GF)
Replace dual stage inflator with single
Replace bracket and spring mechanism by
molding into steering wheel airbag housing
for a single trace horn activation system
4.3.6.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
The estimated mass reduction and associated cost impacts are shown in Table 4.3-24 for
the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem.
It should be noted that the vacuum folding technology applied to the steering wheel
airbag can also be applied to other airbag modules throughout the vehicle and will likely
be done so on future vehicles although it is not currently in production and was not
performed in this study.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 455
Table 4.3-24: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Occupant Restraining Device Subsystem
CO
t
0.000
0.622
0.000
0.000
0.375
0.000
0.264
1.261
(Decrease}
Cost Impact
Tp,
50.00
$0.99
$0.00
$0.00
-$0.31
$0.00
43.80
-$3.12
(Increase)
Average
cos-;
Kilogram
S/kg
-
$1.60
-
-
-$0.82
-
414.39
-$2.47
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub- Subs.
Mass
Redu<3on
'%'
-
15.43%
-
-
7.48%
-
19.07%
6.42%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduoon
•%'
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
0.00%
0:01%
0.05%
(1( "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.3.7 Secondary Mass Reduction/Compounding
There were no compounding mass reductions for this system. Table 4.3-25 summarizes
the total mass and cost impact by subsystem. The systems largest savings were realized in
the Seating Subsystem. Significant mass savings were also found in the Instrument Panel
and Console Subsystem. Detailed system analysis resulted in 34.0 kg saved at a cost of
increase $127.23, resulting in a $3.74 per kg cost increase.
Table 4.3-25: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Body System Group -B-
CO
••f.
tn_
oT
19
"61
03
"61
"63"
'of
03
Subsystem
00
05
OS
07"
To"
12
20
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
"do
00
00
00
Description
Body Group B
Interior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Sound and Heat Control 8u:syste"i (Body)
Sealing Subsystem
Seating Subsystem
Instrument Panel and Console Subsystem
Occupant Restraining Device Sussvstem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ID
2.06
0.00
'4.72
19"2
6.82
1.26
34.0
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" [,]
0.00
0.00
d".'b"d
Ob
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
2.06
0.00
4.72
19.2
6.82
1.26
34.0
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
T
J ;'2'
S6.84
$0.00
"$32"23
'"-S127"89"
-$35.29
-$3.12
-$127.23
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
•'$" K
$0.00
$0.00
$"6".oo
$"Q"QO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" 12}
$6.84
$0.00
$32.23
"-$127.89"
435.29
-$3.12
-$127.23
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$3.32
$0.00
$6.84
-$6.68
-$5.17
-$2.47
-$3.74
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.08%
0.00%
0.19%
0.78%
0.28%
0.05%
1.39%
(1} "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 456
4.3.8 Body Group -B- Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Body System -B- and for the lightweighted and
compounded Engine System is provided in Figure 4.3-5. The "Steel & Iron" content
category was reduced by nearly 20%, while "Magnesium" and "Plastic" increased by
9.1% and 4.3%, respectively.
Baseline Body System -B-
Total Body System -B-
Body "B" System Material
Analysis
Steel&lron
H S. Steel
Aluminum
Foam/Carpet
Rubber
Piast*
8. Copper
9. Other
Body "B" System Material
Analysis
25.2%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
9.6%
7.7%
19.0%
0.0%
38.1%
Material Categories:
62.227 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
1.111 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
23.694 5. Foam/Carpet
18.898 6. Rubber
47.010 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Copper
94.077 9. Other
I
5.3%
0.0%
0.5%
9.1%
11.1%
6.6%
23.3%
0.0%
44.1%
Material Categories:
11.202 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
1.111 3. Aluminum
19.282 4. Magnesium
23.694 5. Foam/Carpet
14.145 6. Rubber
49.623 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Copper
93.939 9. Other
100%
247.017 TOTAL
100%
212.996 TOTAL
Figure 4.3-5: Calculated Body System -B- Baseline Material and Total Material Content
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 457
4.4 Body System -C- (Exterior)
The Body System Group -C- includes the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation, Rear View
Mirror, Front End Modules and Rear End Modules Subsystems. The Front End Modules
Subsystem is the largest weight contributor at 21.08 kg as shown in Table 4.4-1.
Table 4.4-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Body System Group -C-
CO
1
CD
03
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
00
08
09
23
24
«
IT
CO
C
O"
w
f
03
00
00
00
00
00
Descriptor!
Body Group C
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Sys:erri S
SubsysiHTi
Mass
Teg*
12.824
4.276
21.080
2.2&S
40.478
2454
1.65%
Table 4.4-2: Mass Reductions and Cost Impact for System Group -C-
CO
I
03
09
09
09
09
Subsystem
00
01
01
01
01
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Descriptor!
Body Group C
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea Level
Setect
A
Mass
Rsdu~:r
'kg1 (1,
0.989
0.373
0.575
0.200
2.138
(Decrease)
Cor. l~pac:
"$" {!>
$1.05
$0.94
$0.50
$0.24
$2.73
(Decrease}
Average
Cos*
Kfcgram
S/kg
$1.06
$2.51
$0.87
$1.20
$1.28
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
ReduoSon
•%•
7.71%
8.73%
2.73%
8.72%
5.28%
VehJde
Mass
Reducaon
•%'
0.04%
0.02%
0.02%
0.01%
0.09%
(1) 'V = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "-«-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 458
Body System C Material
Analysis
• BIS*
43.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
56.7%
0.0%
0.0%
17.545
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
22.934
0.000
0.000
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
e. Rubber
7. Plastic
3. Glass
9. Other
I
100% 40.478 TOTAL
Figure 4.4-1: Calculated Material Content For The Body System -C- Base BOM
4.4.1 Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
4.4.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.4-3 identifies the most significant contributor to the mass of the Exterior Trim
and Ornamentation Subsystem as the radiator grill. The lower exterior finishers, upper
exterior and roof finishers, rear closure finisher, emblems, cowl vent grill assembly, and
subsystem attachments compose the balance of the stated mass.
Table 4.4-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
GO
••<
ffi
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 459
4.4.1.2 Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado's exterior trim and ornamentation was standard for the industry.
There was a chrome-plated plastic grill with emblem, a tailgate finishing panel, and
emblems. Also, there were the door finishing panels and a cowl vent screen. The
materials and the thickness used are common; the differences lay in the size and the
intent of their utilization.
Image 4.4-1: Exterior Trim - Chrome-plated Plastic Grill with Emblem
Image 4.4-2: Exterior Trim - Tailgate Finishing Panel
J
Image 4.4-3: Exterior Trim - Door Finishing Panel
Image 4.4-4: Exterior Trim - Cowl Vent Grill Assembly
(Images 4.4-1 through 4.4-4 Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 460
4.4.1.3 Mass reduction Industry Trends
Down-gauging material thickness is the most common method used to reduce the weight
of the exterior trim. Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the
whole component or the thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass
reduction.
Another common industry method for mass reduction is to change materials and
processes for selected components. The most promising emerging technology for hard
trim is gas assist injection molding. PolyOne technology is currently used in production
in industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in Section 4.3.
4.4.1.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.4-4 shows the mass reduction ideas considered for the Exterior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 461
Table 4.4-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Exterior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem
Component/Assembly Mass-Reduction Idea
Radiator Grill
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
Estimated Impact
10% - 20% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Radiator Grill
Radiator Grill
Mold in Color
Material Change
0 -10% Mass
^Jaavirigs^^
0 -10% Mass
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Lower Exterior
Finishers
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
ne)
10% - 20% Mass
Savings
0 -16%"Mass
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings
Potential
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Upper Exterior
Finishers
Low Cost, Durability Issues
10% - 20% Mass
Savings
0-To%1viass
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings
Potential
Upper Exterior
Rear Closure
Finishers
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
10% - 20% Mass
Savings
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Rear Closure
Rear Closure
Finishers
Mold in Color
Material Change
0 -10% Mass
^JSayjrigs^^
0 -10% Mass
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings
Potential
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Emblems
Emblems
Cowl Vent Screen
Low Cost, Aesthetically Unappealing,
Mold in Feature then
Paint or Apply Decal
0 -10% Mass
Savings
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
10% - 20% Mass
Savings
Low Cost, Aesthetically Unappealing
Low or No Cost Impact with Mass
reduction
Cowl Vent Screen
Material Change
0 -10% Mass
Savings
Low Cost, Durability Issues
4.4.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "A" group are shown in Table 4.4-5.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 462
Table 4.4-5: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Selected for the Exterior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem
CO
l-t-
CD
'03
'03
'03
03
en
D"
3
'08
'08
'08
08
CO
D"
A)
O"
S"
3
'00
'01
'02
!°L
1b
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Radiator Grill
Lower Exterior Finishers
Rear Closure Finishers
Cowl Vent Screen
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PJ?!Y.O!HJI^!:^
_™™J:i°!YOn!lJ;lrc^
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
4.4.1.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
The PolyOne process was utilized on the Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Sub-
subsystems listed in Table 4.4-6. This resulted in a mass savings of 10% and a cost
savings were achieved. The changes to emblems were not implemented since there were
wear and durability issues with the decal life and performance.
Table 4.4-6: Summary of Mass Reduction and Cost Impacts for the Exterior Trim and
Ornamentation Subsystem
^
a
CD
3
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
CO
§"
~%
CD"
3
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
04
07
12
15
Description
Exte£iorJ^1mjmdjOrnaitiiei^
Radiator Grill
Lower Exterior Finishers
Upper Exterior and Roof Finish
Rear Closure Finishers
Badging
Cowl Vent Grill
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
0.489
0.205
0.000
0.113
0.000
0.182
0.989
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$0.44
$0.26
$0.00
$0.12
$0.00
$0.23
$1.05
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.90
_$1J5_
_$1JO_
$1.28
$1.06
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"% "
7.21%
JOLOO%_
_9.76%_
9.90%
7.71%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"% "
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.04%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 463
4.4.2 Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
4.4.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.4-7 shows that the most significant contributor to the mass of the Rear View
Mirror Subsystem is the outside rear view mirrors. This includes both front driver and
passenger side outside rear view mirrors. The inside rear view mirror and the trim cover
make up the balance of the mass.
Table 4.4-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
tfl
•^
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 464
Image 4.4-5 (left): Inside Rear View Mirror
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.4-6 (right): Outside Rear View Mirror
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.4.2.2 Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado rear view mirrors utilized materials and the thicknesses used by
most automobile manufacturers and suppliers.
4.4.2.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass.
Designing in reinforcements while varying thickness for the whole component or the
thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.
Another common industry method is to change materials and manufacturing processes.
These component processes are altered based on materials technology and process
production for interior/exterior hardware. The most promising emerging technology for
hard trim is gas assist injection molding.
PolyOne technology is currently used in production in industrial housings and structural
foam applications as introduced in Section 4.3.1.
4.4.2.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.4-8 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Rear View Mirrors
Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 465
Table 4.4-8: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear View Mirrors
Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Inside Rear View Mirror
Outside Rear View
Mirror - Left
Outside Rear View
Mirror - Right
Trim Cover - Inside Rear
View Mirror
Mass-Reduction Idea
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
10% -20% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
Low or no Cost Impact with Mass
Reduction
4.4.2.5 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "A" group are shown in Table 4.4-9.
Table 4.4-9: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Selected for the Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
OT
1
3
03
03
03
OT
c
rr
tn
*<
in
of
3
09
09
09
en
a
cr
OT
c
cr
in
><
ft
3
00
02
02
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Outside Rear View Mirror - Left
Outside Rear View Mirror - Right
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Gas Assist Injection Molding
Gas Assist Injection Molding
4.4.2.6 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts and Cost Impacts
The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table 4.4-10. This
resulted in a mass savings and a cost savings.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 466
Table 4.4-10: Summary of Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Concepts for the Rear View Mirror
Subsystem
CO
1
CD
03
03
03
03
Subsystem
09
09
09
09
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
99
Description
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Interior Mirror
Exterior Mirrors
Misc.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (D
0.000
0.373
0.000
0.373
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
11
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 467
Image 4.4-7: Front Fascia
Image 4.4-8: Front Fascia Bumpers
Image 4.4-9: Front Fascia Air Dam
(Sources: FEV, Inc.)
4.4.3.2 Baseline Subsystem Technology
The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers.
4.4.3.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass.
Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the whole component
or the thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.
Another common industry method is to change materials and manufacturing processes.
These component processes are altered based on materials technology and process
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 468
production for interior hardware. The most promising emerging technology for hard trim
is gas assist injection molding.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEM's like Audi, Ford, BMW and
Volkswagen as introduced in Section 4.3. PolyOne technology is currently used in
production in industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in
Section 4.3.1.
4.4.3.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.4-12 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Front End Module
Subsystem.
Table 4.4-12: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front End
Module Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Mass-Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Front Fascia Assembly
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolvOne
Front Fascia Assembly
10%-20% Mass
Savings
0-T6%Tiviass
Low or no Cost Impactwith Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings
Potential
Front Fascia Assembly
Material Change
0-10% Mass
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Air Dam
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
10%-20% Mass
Savings
Low or no Cost Impactwith Mass
reduction
Air Dam
Mold in Color
0-10% Mass
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings
Potential
Air Dam
Material Change
0-10% Mass
Low Cost, Durability Issues
BumperCorners
BumperCorners
BumperCorners
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolvOne
10%-20% Mass
Savings
Low or no Cost Impactwith Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings
Potential
Material Change
0-10% Mass
Savings
Low Cost, Durability Issues
Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "Ae" group are shown in Table
4.4-13.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 469
Table 4.4-13: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Selected for the Front End Module Subsystem
CO
*<
(/)
CD"
3
'03
'03
'03
'03
Subsyste
3
23
23
23
23
CO
ub-Subsys
t-t-
CD
3
'00
'02
'02
'02
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Front End Module Subsystem
Front Fascia
Front Fascia Bumpers
Front Fascia Air Dam
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
4.4.3.5 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
The PolyOne gas assist system was utilized for all components in Table 4.4-14. This
produced a mass savings and a cost savings.
Table 4.4-14: Summary of Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front End Module Subsystem
g
a.
CD
3
_
03
Subsystem
23
23
Sub-Subsystem
00
02
Description
Front End Modules
Module - Front Bumper and Fascia
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
0.575
0.575
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
ii CM
» (2)
$0.50
$0.50
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.87
$0.87
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
2.73%
2.73%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.02%
0.02%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.4.4 Rear End Module Subsystem
4.4.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.4-15 illustrates that the most significant contributor to the mass of the Rear End
Module Subsystem is the rear bumper cover assembly. The trailer connector, spare tire
release, and attachments make up the balance of the mass for this subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 470
Table 4.4-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear End Module Subsystem
CO
*-<
(£
(0
3
03
03
Subsystem
24
24
Sub-Subsystem
00
02
Description
Rear End Modules
Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
2.299
2.299
40.478
2454
5.68%
0.09%
Image 4.4-10: Rear Bumper Guard - Center
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.4-11: Rear Bumper Guards - LH/RH Sides
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 471
4.4.4.2 Baseline Subsystem Technology
The materials and thickness used are in common use by many automobile manufacturers
and their suppliers.
4.4.4.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Down-gauging the material thickness is the most common method used to reduce mass.
Designing in reinforcements while varying material thickness for the whole component
or the thickness of a specific section, can provide a significant mass reduction.
Another common industry method is to change materials and manufacturing processes.
These component processes are altered based on materials technology and process
production for interior hardware. The most promising emerging technology for hard trim
is gas assist injection molding.
MuCell technology is currently used by major OEMs like Audi, Ford, BMW and
Volkswagen as introduced in Section 4.3.1. PolyOne technology is currently used in
production in industrial housings and structural foam applications as introduced in
Section 4.3.1.
4.4.4.4
Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.4-16: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear End Module
Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Rear Bumper Cover
Assembly
Rear Bumper Cover
Assembly
Rear Bumper Cover
Assembly
Mass-Reduction Idea
Gas Assist Injection
Molding (MuCell®,
PolyOne)
Mold in Color
Material Change
Estimated Impact
10% -20% Mass
Savings
0-10% Mass
Savings
0-10% Mass
Savings
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Low or no Cost Impactwith Mass
reduction
Low Cost, Little Mass Savings
Potential
Low Cost, Durability Issues
4.4.4.5 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Selected
The mass reduction ideas selected that fell into the "A" group are shown in Table 4.4-17.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 472
Table 4.4-17: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Selected for the Rear End Module Subsystem
CO
*<
(/)
CD"
3
'03
'03
Subsyste
3
24
24
CO
ub-Subsys
t-t-
CD
3
'00
'02
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
ReaMEndMyiodulejS^
Rear Bumper Cover Assembly
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
PolyOne Process - Injection Molding
4.4.4.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
The PolyOne gas assist system was used for all components in Table 4.4-19. The result is
a mass savings and a cost. All the savings is attributable to the rear bumper cover.
Table 4.4-18: Summary of Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Concepts Estimates for the Rear End
Module Subsystem
CO
m
CD
3
03
J33,
Subsystem
24
24
Sub-Subsystem
00
J°2.
Description
Rear End Modules
Module - Rear Bumper and Fascia
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" d)
0.200
0.200
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$0.24
$0.24
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.20
$1.20
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
8.72%
8.72%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"% "
0.01%
0.01%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.4.5 Secondary Mass Reduction and Compounding
As seen in Table 4.4-19, this project recorded a system mass reduction of 2.14 kg (5.3%)
at a cost decrease of $2.73, or $1.28 per kg. The contribution of the Body Group -C-
system to the overall vehicle mass reduction was 0.09%. There are no compounding mass
reductions for this system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 473
Table 4.4-19: Summary of Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Concepts Estimates for the Body
Group -C- System
a
a
..._.
09
09
09
09
f
U)
*£
00
01
01
01
01
=-
1
•-=:
a
d
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Body Group C
Exterior Trim and Ornamentation Subsystem
Rear View Mirrors Subsystem
Front End Modules
Rear End Modules
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
0.989
0.373
0.575
0.200
2.14
(Decrease!
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ,„
0.00
000
000
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"*9" ID
0.989
0.373
0575
0.200
2.14
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"S" ci
S1.05
SO 94
SO 50
S0.24
12,73
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"S" (2)
$0.00
$000
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
- - —
$1.05
$0.94
$0.50
$024
$2.73
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
—
$106
$2,51
SO 67
$120
$1.28
(Decrease:
Vehicle
Reduction
Total
004%
002%
0 02%
0.01%
0.09%
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.4.6 Body Group -C- Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Body System -C- and for the lightweighted system is
provided in Figure 4.4-2. The "Plastic" content category was reduced by 2.5%, while
"Steel & Iron" increased by 2.5%.
Baseline Body System -C- Total Body System -C-
Body System C Material
Analysis
* •! \w
Body System C Material
Analysis
Total System Mass: 40.478 K6
89.214 IBS
Vehicle Delta: 2346.522 Kg
1.696% Potion of GWV
Total System Mass: 3B 340 KG
S4.502 LBS
Veriicle Delta: 2347.660 Kg
1.607% PoraonofSVW
43.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
56.7%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
17.545
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
22.934
0.000
0.000
40.478
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
I
TOTAL
45.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
54.2%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
17.545
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.795
0.000
0.000
Material Categoric
1. Steel S Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. FoamlCarpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
38.340 TOTAL
Figure 4.4-2: Calculated Body System -C- Baseline Material and Total Material Content
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 474
4.5 Body System Group -D-
Group -D- of the Body System includes the Glazing; Handles, Locks, Latches; and
Wipers and Washers Subsystems, as shown in Table 4.5-1. The most significant
contributor to this system's mass is the Glazing Subsystem, which accounts for most of
the system mass.
Table 4.5-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Body System Group -D-
en
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 475
Table 4.5-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Body System Group -D-
CO
•-<
¥1
c
cr
in
*<
(if
3
00
00
00
00
Description
Body System (Group D) Glazing
Glass (Glazing), Frame and Mechanism Subsystem
Handles, Locks. Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
System.'
Subsystem
Weight
"kg"
39.597
5.659
5.605
50.861
(Decrease)
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
"kg" !•;
4.429
0.000
0.074
4.503
(Decrease;
Estimated
Cost
Impact
"5" (2)
$2.23
$0.00
$0.06
$2.30
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$0.50
-
$0.84
$0.51
(Decrease)
System/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
11.19%
-
i.32%
885%
Vehicle
Pi/lass
Reduction
"%"
0.18%
0.00%
0.00%
0.18%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2} "*" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Body Group D
Material Analysis
17.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
77.9%
0.0%
100%
Material Categories:
9.105 1. SteelS Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.000 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.000 6. Rubber
2.159 7. Plastic
39.597 8. Glass
0.000 9. Other
I
50.861 TOTAL
Figure 4.5-1: Calculated Material Content for the Body System Group -D- Base BOM
4.5.1 Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem
4.5.1.1 Baseline Subsystem Technology
The 2011 Chevrolet Silverado passenger cabin Glazing Subsystem application is
representative of the typical current industry standard. This subsystem represents all
vehicle glazing (Table 4.5-3).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 476
Table 4.5-3: Baseline Subsystem for Glazing Subsystem
GO
2-
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 477
The Glazing Subsystem has four sub-subsystems as shown in Table 4.5-4. The
windshield is the first and is a laminated, two-panel window assembly nominally 5 mm
thick. The second is the back window assembly, which is tempered glass and nominally 4
mm thick. The third and fourth sub-subsystems are the front and rear door glass. This
glass is tempered as well and nominally 3.85 mm thick.
Table 4.5-4: Glazing Subsubsystem Summary
in
(D
3
03
03
03
03
03
w
ET
U)
(D
3
11
11
11
11
11
C/3
cr
Cfl
CT
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 478
4.5.1.3 Rear Window Sub-subsystem
The rear window is manufactured from tempered glass and is nominally 4 mm thick. This
is a single-piece assembly on the Silverado. In many cases the truck market has a sliding
panel assembled into the rear window. This may require other measures in window
manufacturing than was encountered on the Silverado.
Front / Rear Side Door Windows
The moveable side door windows are manufactured from tempered glass as well and are
nominally 3.85 mm thick.
The manufacturing process of the side door and rear windows is less expensive than
laminated glass. Side door and rear glass does not have the same acoustic properties of
laminated glass and does not block UV rays as effectively as laminated glass.
The fragile nature of tempered glass causes it to shatter upon impact. The shattered glass
crumbles into small, oval pebble shapes eliminating the danger of sharp edges.
Tempered Safety Glass (TSG)
Single pane tempered safety glass is the current glass of choice for all vehicle
applications except the windshield. The principal advantage tempered safety glass has
over laminated safety glass is reduced manufacturing costs and strength in compression
and bending. The strength is less than laminated safety glass yet strong enough to
withstand blunt force impact and shock. These characteristics allow TSG to provide a
lower level of occupant ejection safety.
Tempered safety glass is manufactured in a very hot atmosphere with the outside layer
being quickly cooled while the inner glass material is still hot. This places the glass
panels in compression. This process produces a product which is tough, yet pliable,
which lends itself to being formed and bent to accommodate vehicle features. The
tempering process also works well for occupant safety upon glass breakage. The
tempering process allows for a controlled fracture process yielding small, blocky
fragments, minimizing the opportunity for these small pieces to injure occupants.
Laminated Safety Glass (LSG)
Laminated glass is traditionally a float process, soda-lime glass sandwiched with a layer
of plastic laminate in the middle. The lamination is polyvinyl butyral (PVB) and provides
additional impact resistant strength to the otherwise, fragile glass. The PVB Sheet is
nominally 0.70mm thick. This assembly allows windshields to "crack" versus
"shattering" when broken. The issue of shattered glass injuring the occupants was one of
the driving factors in the development of laminated safety glass.
The polyvinyl butyral (PVB) layer provides additional features in reduced ultraviolet ray
penetration which causes interior fabric to fade, dampening in minimizing NVH
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 479
concerns, vehicle security through resistance to break in through the window, and
occupant ejection protection, as a few. These features are some of the enablers for the use
of laminated safety glass as replacement for tempered glass windows. The down side to
this argument is laminated glass has the potential to inhibit occupant egress in an
emergency situation. The argument applies to access to trapped occupants by emergency
personnel as well.
There is a movement within the industry to take advantage of some of the ancillary
benefits associated with LSG. Many OEM's are entertaining the use of laminated
windows in place of current tempered safety glass applications, some already have. The
features being highlighted are occupant safety concerns, NVH issues, and vehicle
security. This trend will create an increase in mass to current applications as well as a
cost increase when using current level of glazing technology.
PVB Intetlayer
Glass
.098 inch
Figure 4.5-3: Laminated Glass Assembly
(Sources: Left-Xinology.com, Autoclave -Free Glass Laminating Oven; Right-madehow.com, How automobile
windshield is made)
Image 4.5-1 (Left): Laminated Glass Windshield, Broken
(Source: Collisionmax.com)
Image 4.5-2 (Right): Tempered Glass Windshield, Broken
(Source: faswd.com, tempered glass shatter.jpeg)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 480
4.5.1.4 Glazing Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The industry is slowly beginning a large shift in the mass reduction efforts associated
with glazing applications. Many of the changes are starting to enter the market, at a slow
pace. The overall cost change is yet to be understood due to the lack of maturity of the
technology change. The two companies mentioned in this article are involved in the
technology change and are stating a neutral cost impact once the product is mature. This
claim has yet to be played out in the market place.
The industry is beginning to entertain change to the traditional soda-lime glass panel
exclusive use in motor vehicle applications. All glazing applications are subject to
change. The most difficult change to make will be the windshield. This is due to the
occupant safety requirements, FMVSS regulations, structural stability of the vehicle, and
NVH implications.
The two main suppliers are Exatec® and Sabic®, with a polycarbonate product, Lexan, to
replace the storm-weathered soda-lime glass product, and Dow Corning® attempting to
capture another large market with their Gorilla® Glass product technology.
The Exatec technology using polycarbonate base is a very design friendly process. This
process allows a wide variety of shapes and complex contours not available in the current
industry glass market. Many of these advantages are able to be color coordinated and an
added benefit of the combination of multiple traditional parts into a single component.
The Corning® technology is a thinner - stronger, alkali-aluminosilicate sheet toughened
glass. The Corning process is a unique forming process, mating a fusion process with
innovative glass composition. This process is scalable and reliable while optimized for
chemical strength and scratch and damage resistant. The Corning process produces a thin
laminated glass.
Exatec - Plasma Coated Lexan (PC)
Exatec is a subsidiary of Sabic, making plastic components for many applications in the
motor vehicle market. They already mold plastic body panels, replacing traditional metal
products. They provide decorative creativity and proven over-molding technology in
pursuit of entering the automobile products manufacturing battle. They already supply the
automotive industry with a small variety of PC components to replace traditional glass
glazing components.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 481
Citroen DS5 Rear Quarter Windows (2011)
Eliminates D pillar; Aerodynamic feature molded in
Fiat 500L Rear Quarter Windows (2012)
Eliminates D pillar; Aerodynamic feature molded in
GM Corvette roof (C5, C6, and C7)
Lightweight and durable
Design freedom vs. glass
SEAT Leon RQW (2005 SOP)
Styling: hides rear door handle
Honda Civic lower rear (2006 SOP)
Styling; Integrated rear spoiler, CHMSL, and locators
For every 10% increase in aerodynamic efficiency,
an increase in fuel economy of 1-2% may be achieved'
Image 4.5-3: Exatec Product Technology Examples
(Source: Lexan Glazing Overview 18Febl3(2).pdf, Sabic/Exatec)
Lexan requires additional coating operations to be ready for glazing installation on motor
vehicles. The base Lexan PC resin is processed through a wet coat operation during
which the primer and wet coat are applied for UV protection. The second operation is an
Exatec plasma coating operation creating a glass-like abrasion resistance coating.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 482
Exatec E900 coating system
—7 Exatec plasma: Glass-like Abrasion Resistance
// Primer/Wet coat: UV protection
Lexan PC resin
7 Primer/Wet coat: UV protection
- Exatec plasma: Glass-like Abrasion Resistance
ULA/XVC
2010: Exatec and ULVAC signed a non-exclusive
agreement to jointly take plasma coating technology
to large-scale commercialization.
ULVAC is a world leader in vacuum coating equipment
fabrication and technology. ULGLAZE-300
Suppliers are available to provide plasma coating
machinery to the industry under license from Exatec.
T
ULGLAZE-1500
Figure 4.5-4: Exatec Coating System
(Source: Lexan Glazing Overview 18Febl3(2).pdf, Sabic/Exatec)
To further the Exatec®/Sabic® presence in the growing world market, Volkswagen
introduced the Volkswagen XL1 Plug in Hybrid vehicle at the 2013 Geneva Auto Show.
The Volkswagen XL1 has polycarbonate (PC) side windows with the advanced Exatec
plasma coating technology from Sabic. This technology introduction is said to deliver a
mass reduction of 33% over the use of conventional soda-lime glazing products.
The development of PC windshield replacement is active in Europe. This is the leading
edge of future development for windshield applications. The European industry group is
developing parameters and testing validation for use in the European market with focus
on entry into the North American marketplace.
Dow Corning® - Gorilla® Glass
In the 1960s, Dow Corning developed a tough, but light glass known as Chemcor®,
which eventually was used for tableware, ophthalmic products, and eventually
applications for automotive, aviation, and the pharmaceutical industry.
In the early 2000s and the introduction of the first iPhones, Apple CEO Steve Jobs met
with Corning CEO Weldon Weeks and explained he wanted the product's screen made of
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 483
®
glass. Corning began development of a tough cover glass for electronic devices in 2006.
The iPhone was unveiled in January 2007 and went on sale in late the following June.
Future development of Gorilla Glass for advanced electronic devices led Corning to
evaluate automotive industry applications.
Gorilla Glass is an alkali-alumino silicate sheet toughened glass. Dow Corning states the
material's primary properties are strength (allowing thin glass without fragility), high
scratch resistance (protective coating), hardness (with the Vickers hardness test rating of
622 - 701), and that the material can be recycled. The strength of Gorilla Glass is in the
processing of the thin sheet. With the material change the compression layer is stronger
and is pushed deeper into the sheet of glass. The depth allows small surface flaws and
imperfections to be present yet not propagate beyond the compression layer boundary
(Figure 4.5-5).
Standard (Soda Lime) Glass
Gorilla Glass
Compression
Layer
i If a flaw or a damage / impact / scratch propagates beyond the compression layer, the glass
I can break. Therefore it is critical to have a deep layer and a high compressive stress. The
j composition of Corning" Gorilla8 Glass is designed to optimize the ion exchange to allow that.
Figure 4.5-5: Gorilla Glass Automotive Glazing
(Source: Coming Gorilla Glass for Automotive Glazing, Corning Incorporated, 5th Environmentally-Friendly
Vehicle Conference, Baltimore, MD, 12 Sep 2012, Slide #4)
Corning Gorilla Glass was a late addition to the mass reduction mix. Table 4.5-5
demonstrates the mass reduction opportunity provided by the Corning product line.
Corning is not currently in the production mode for Gorilla Glass for the automotive
industry. They continue to develop this product and expect to be ready to enter the
automotive markets with Gorilla Glass within the next 10 years.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 484
Soda - Lime
GORILLA
GLASS
Light Weight
Laminate
Polycarbonate
2.I/O.76/2.1 mm
O.7/O.76/O.7 mm
Figure 4.5-6: Overall Mass Reduction Summary
(Source: Corning Gorilla Glass for Automotive Glazing, Corning Incorporated, 5th Environmentally-Friendly
Vehicle Conference, Baltimore, MD, 12 Sep 2012, Slide #7)
Corning® Gorilla® Glass can be 75% thinner than
soda lime with equivalent ball drop performance
G
Thickness of fully tempered soda
lime glass is typically > 3.2 mm BALL DROP TEST
Gorilla Glass is typically
manufactured at 0.55 - 1.K
Test conditions:
Glass Size:
Ball Weight:
Soda Lime:
Gorilla Glass:
4" x 4"
128 g
3.2mm
0.65mm
)mm
?3.0
I
i"
I 1.0
Gorilla Soda Lime
(Air Tempered)
1-A
/ Same load at failure,
\ 75% thinner
\
0.0 t 1.0 2.0 3.0* 4.0
0.65mm Thickness (mm) 12 mm
• Soda Lime D Gorilla
Figure 4.5-7: Gorilla® Glass Ball Drop Test Results
(Source: Corning Gorilla Glass for Automotive Glazing, Corning Incorporated, 5th Environmentally-Friendly
Vehicle Conference, Baltimore, MD, 12 Sep 2012, Slide #5)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 485
Table 4.5-5: Gorilla® Glass Mass Reduction Opportunity (Laminated)
Component / Assembly
Windshield
Sunroof
Side Lites
Back Lites
Total Glass Aream
1.32
1.00
1.67
0.96
Mass Reduction Opportunity
(Lamination not included)
Glass . ,
Glass Thickness
Material
SodaLime: 2. 1mm x 2. 1mm
Gorilla Glass: 0. 7mm x 0.7mm
SodaLime: 4.85mm
Gorilla Glass: 0. 7mm x 0.7mm
SodaLime: 3.85mm
Gorilla Glass: 0. 7mm x 0.7mm
SodaLime: 3.85mm
Gorilla Glass: 0. 7mm x 0.7mm
Potential Savings
Base Mass
(Kg.)
14.9
5.6
12.1
4.2
20.3
7.1
11.6
4.1
Mass Reduction
(Kg.)
9.3
7.9
13.2
7.5
Reduction
Percentage
62.42%
65.29%
65.02%
64.66%
(Source: Corning Gorilla Glass for Automotive Glazing, Corning Incorporated, 5th Environmentally-Friendly
Vehicle Conference, Baltimore, MD, 12 Sep 2012, Slide #8)
Gorilla® glass is a laminated product and all glazing applications for this product are thus
laminated instead of tempered. This change may require NHTSA approval for egress,
although some manufacturers are starting to use laminated glass to minimize NVH
concerns. It provides the same benefits as any other laminated glass: It does not shatter
like tempered glass, which provides some enhanced crash protection in reducing
ejections. It provides NVH improvements and better theft protection against smashed
glass to gain entry.
Table 4.5-6: Glazing Technology Mass Reduction Opportunity
Base Component /
Assembly
Windshield
Side Door Windows
Rear Windows
Total Glass
Area m2
1.32
1.67
0.96
Qty.
1
1
1
2
4
4
1
1
1
Base
Exatec®
Corning®
Base
Exatec®
Corning®
Base
Exatec®
Corning®
Mass Reduction Opportunity
Qass Material
Soda Lime:
Lexan (PC):
Gorilla Glass:
Soda Lime:
Lexan (PC):
Gorilla Glass:
Soda Lime:
Lexan (PC):
Gorilla Glass:
Glass Thickness
2.1mmx2.1mm
4.5mmx 4.5mm
0. 7mm x 0.7mm
3.85mm
4.5mmx 4.5mm
0. 7mm x 0.7mm
3.85mm
4.5mmx 4.5mm
0. 7mm x 0.7mm
Subsystem Mass-Reduction Opportunities per Technology
**Base Information to compare the various technologies used was a part of a Corning®
Potential Savings Soda Lime Glass
Base
Mass
(Kg.)
14.9
40.6
11.6
Mass
Reduction
(Kg.)
1.49
10.15
1.972
Reduction
Percentage
10.00%
25.00%
17.00%
67.1 13.61 20.29%
Soda Lime (Base)
Potential Savings Exatec® PC
Base Mass
(Kg.)
Mass
Reduction
(Kg.)
Reduction
Percentage
Not current^ under developed in the USA
81.2
11.6
26.80
3.83
33.00%
33.00%
92.8 30.62 33.00%
Exatec® PC
Potential Savings
Base Mass
(Kg.)
14.9
81.2
11.6
Mass
Reduction
(Kg.)
9.387
51.156
7.308
Reduction
Percentage
63.00%
63.00%
63.00%
107.7 67.85 63.00%
Corning® Gorilla® Glass
Gorilla® Glass presentation for the 5th Environmentally -Friendly Vehicles Conference,
Baltimore, MD, 12 Sep 2012.
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Table 4.5-7 presents the mass reduction ideas that were considered for implementation
on the Chevrolet Silverado Glazing Sub-subsystem. Changes to the current glazing
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 486
industry technology were more strongly considered due to the lack of maturity of the
Exatec/Sabic and Corning Gorilla Glass product lines.
Table 4.5-7: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for Glazing Subsystem
Component / Assembly
Windshield
Rear Window
Rear Window
Rear Window
Front and Rear Side Door
Windows
Front and Rear Side Door
Windows
Front and Rear Side Door
Windows
Mass-Reduction Idea
Reduce Inner glass layer thickness
from 2.27mm to 1 .6mm
Reduce thickness from 4.00mm to
3.15mm
Replace with Polycarbonate Glazing
Replace Tempered Glass with
Laminated Gorilla® Glass
Replace Tempered Glass with
Laminated Gorilla® Glass
Replace with Polycarbonate Glazing
Reduce thickness from 3.85mm to
3.15mm.
Estimated Impact
10% Mass-Reduction
1 7% Mass-Reduction
33% Mass-Reduction
25% Mass-Reduction
25% Mass-Reduction
33% Mass-Reduction
20% Mass-Reduction
Risks & Trade Offs and / or Benefits
Minimal cost increase.
Possible NVH and cabin noise increase.
Minimal cost increase.
Currently installed in Dodge Durango.
Minimal risk.
Sabic/Exatec introduced at 201 3 Geneva Auto
Show on VW XL1 . Greater design flexibility.
Possible passenger safety concern with egress.
Incremental cost increased.
Possible passenger safety concern with egress.
Incremental cost increased.
Minimal risk.
Sabic/Exatec introduced at 201 3 Geneva Auto
Show on VW XL1 . Greater design flexibility.
Minimal cost increase.
Possible NVH and cabin noise increase.
3.15mm thickness is standard in EU.
The advantage in the implementation of mass reduction ideas may change the focus of
these two companies, as well as others, once mass reduction efforts become more
mainstream activity. There is enough flexible creativity in the base products offered by
these companies to allow them to continue development efforts to introduce new
technology on a wide basis in the not too distant future. The unknown business cost
model may become a deterrent and drag development on for a longer period of time.
Both technologies provide valuable steps forward in the mass reduction effort. They are
also diverse enough to not be stepping on each other's toes. Both technologies provide
advantages which should allow them to mature, and become viable players in the
automotive glazing industry. There are advantages to the vehicle OEM's and to the
energy conscious consumer which can be leveraged for the good of mankind.
None of the new technology ideas were chosen due to the lack of product maturity and
the optimistic cost model projections. Their efforts will continue and their products will
slowly come to market over the next few years as the mass reduction effort flourishes.
4.5.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.5-8 presents the selected mass reduction ideas for Glazing Subsystem of the
Chevrolet Silverado. Glass panel thickness reduction was the choice of the day. These
were the only activities which can be implemented with confidence in success. With the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 487
Volkswagen breakthrough at the Geneva Auto Show in 2013, there breathes some hope
into mass production of lighter mass, replacement components for the current glazing
applications in motor vehicles.
As you review the support material for this report you will see there are significant
opportunities to reduce mass in the Glazing Subsystem. The lack of product test data has
to limit our enthusiasm in stating they will be able to be implemented within the
timetable covered by this report.
If all of the projections provided by Exatec/Sabic and Corning Gorilla Glass product
support activities become reality, there is a potential to reduce the Glazing Subsystem
mass by someplace between 23% and 63% mass reduction at no cost.
Table 4.5-8: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Glazing Subsystem
(n
£2.
CD"
3
03
03
03
03
en
c
£
CD
11
11
11
11
in
I
%
a
0)
3
00
01
05
13
Subsystem Subsubsystem Description
Glass (Glazing), Frame and Mechanism Subsystem
Windshield
Back Window (Fixed)
Rear Side Door Glass
Mass- Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Reduce Windshield Inner Glass Panel thickness from 2.27mm to 1 .6mm
Reduce Rear Window Glass Panel thickness from 4.00mm to 3.15mm
Reduce Rear Door Glass Panel thickness from 3.85mm to 31 .5mm
4.5.1.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.5-9 presents the selected mass reduction ideas which were chosen, the mass
reduction associated with each mass reduction idea, along with the cost impact.
Mass reduction ideas applied to the windshield, rear window assembly, and rear side door
windows are accomplished through the thinning of the glass layer. The thickness of the
inner laminated glass panel of the windshield was reduced from 2.27mm to 1.6mm. This
change results in a mass reduction of 1.59 kg at a cost save of $0.80.
Thinning was applied to the TSG rear window reducing the thickness form 4.00mm to
3.15mm, resulting in a mass reduction of 1.343 kg and a cost save of $0.68
The rear door windows were also thinned from 3.85 mm to 3.15 mm. This reduction is
supported by the fact the 3.15 mm door window thickness is the EU standard. This may
result in some adverse NVH concerns in this class of vehicle but feel confident this will
not be the case. The thinning process, from 3.85 mm to 3.15 mm, yielded a mass
reduction of 1.496 kg at a cost save of $0.76.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 488
The front door window was not a mass reduction consideration due to adverse NVH
concerns related to thinning these glass panels.
Table 4.5-9: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Glazing Subsystem
CO
1
1
03
03
03
03
03
Subsyste
rj
...........
11
11
11
11
Sub-Subsys
3
66
01
05
13
14
Description
Glass (Glazing), Frame, and Mechanism Subsystem
Windshield and Front Quarter Window (Fixed)
Back Window Assy
Front Side Door Glass
Rear Side Door Glass
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
System/
Subsystem
Weight "kg"
15.865
6.588
8.394
8.750
39.597
(Decrease)
Estimated
Mass
Reduction
^9 r:
1.590
1.343
0.000
1.496
4.429
(Decrease)
Estimated
Cost
Impact
$ (2)
$0.80
$0.68
$0.00
SO 76
$2.23
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$0.50
$0.50
$0.00
$0.51
$0.50
(Decrease)
System/
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"Of "
10.02%
20.39%
_
17.10%
11 .19%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
/o
0.06%
0.05%
0.00%
0.06%
0.18%
(1)
mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.5.2 Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem.
4.5.2.1 Subsystem Overview
Table 4.5-10 shows the mass breakdown of the Handles, Locks, Latches and
Mechanisms Subsystem.
Table 4.5-10: Mass Breakdown Subsystem for Handles, Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem
'^C
ISi
as
3
03
03
en
c
cr
(D
3
00
14
c
cr
03
Cfl
(£
(D
3
00
00
Description
Body System (Group D)
Handles. Locks, Latches and Mechanisms Subsystem
Total Sub System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle Mass =
System/
Subsystem
Mass "kg"
5.659
5.662
2454
0.23%
Due to program restraints and low yield of mass reductions on the subsystem it was
determined that this subsystem would not be estimated.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 489
4.5.3 Wipers and Washers Subsystem
4.5.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.5-11 shows the mass breakdown of the Wipers and Washers Subsystem.
Table 4.5-11: Mass Breakdown for Wipers and Washers Subsystem.
C/3
(D
3
03
03
in
cr
(D
3
00
16
CO
cr
C/5
cr
'-=:
3
00
00
Description
Body System (Group D)
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Total Sub System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle Mass =
System/
Subsystem
Mass "kg"
5.605
5.605
2454
0.23%
As shown in Table 4.5-12, the Wiper Assembly Front and Miscellaneous Sub-
subsystems are included in the Wipers and Washers Subsystem.
Table 4.5-12: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Wipers and Washers Subsystem
an
(D
3
03
03
03
CO
•-
cr
O)
(D
3
16
16
16
C/)
cr
cn
cr
tii
•-=:
(D
3
00
01
99
Description
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Wiper Assembly Front
Misc.
Total Sub System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle Mass =
System/
Subsystem
Mass "kg"
4.631
0.975
5.605
2454
0.23%
4.5.3.2 Baseline Subsystem Technology
The wipers combine two mechanical systems to perform their task: an electric motor and
worm gear reduction provides power to the wipers. A linkage converts the rotational
output of the motor into the back-and-forth motion of the wipers. The worm gear
reduction can multiply the torque of the motor by 40 times, while slowing the output
speed of the electric motor by 40 times as well. The output of the gear reduction operates
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 490
the linkage that moves the wipers back and forth. A lever arm is attached to the output
shaft of the gear reduction; the lever arm rotates as the wiper motor turns. The lever is
connected to a rod and the rotational motion of the lever moves the rod back and forth.
The longer rod is connected to a shorter rod that actuates the wiper blade on the driver
side. Another linkage transmits the force from the driver-side to the passenger-side wiper
blade.
Image 4.5-4: Wiper Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.5-5: Solvent Bottle
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 491
4.5.3.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Some of the different wiper blade schemes used by various automotive manufacturers
include:
Pivot Points - Many vehicles have similar wiper designs: Two blades which move
together to clean the windshield. One of the blades pivots from a point close to the
driver's side of the car, and the other blade pivots from near the middle of the windshield.
This is the "Tandem System." This design clears most of the windshield that is in the
driver's field of view.
There are other designs used on automobiles. Mercedes uses a single wiper arm that
extends and retracts as it sweeps across the window - Single Arm (Controlled). This
design also provides good coverage, but is more complicated than the standard dual-
wiper systems. Some systems use wiper blades mounted on opposite sides of the
windshield and move in opposing directions. Other vehicles have a single wiper mounted
in the middle.
Blades - The beam (flat) blade wiper blade (Image 4.5-6) is the main trend in wiper
blade design. The market drivers are product quality and durability. The contact pressure
over the wiper blade element is no longer distributed by the claws of the wiper bracket,
but by a spring specifically designed to optimize wiper blade contact with the windshield.
Image 4.5-6 (Left): Beam (Flat) Blade
Image 4.5-7 (Right): Conventional Blade
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Drive Units - Another trend is the fact that many wiper systems are being controlled by
electronic drive units which determine the arc of wipe and speed. There are few wiper
systems that solely move the wiper blades back and forth without electronic speed
control, except on some entry level vehicles.
Direct drive systems for windshield wipers are currently in production by Bosch and
Valeo for a number of recently launched carlines. The two drives of a dual motor wiper
system do not require an additional mechanical linkage and are therefore smaller than
traditional wiper systems. The mass of each unit is approximately half a liter. The new
Bosch direct drive system needs up to 75% less space and is over a kilogram lighter than
standard drive and linkage systems. Each wiper has its own compact drive motor and is
mounted directly on the drive shaft, which makes the new system easier to integrate into
vehicles. Since the direct drives require no linkage, there is more room for other
components in the engine compartment. An electronic control unit takes the place of the
mechanical linkage. The control unit synchronizes the two drives by monitoring the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 492
position of the two wiper arms. Each drive unit consists of a mechatronic drive that can
run either backwards or forwards. Specifications for the sweep angle and rest position are
programmable. This allows the wiper systems to be designed symmetrically for right and
left hand drive since the blade alignment is controlled by the software.
4.5.3.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.5-13 compiles the mass reduction ideas considered for the Wiper and Washers
Subsystem.
Table 4.5-13: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Wipers and
Washers Subsystem
Component/Assembly
Wipers and Washers
Subsystem
Solvent bottle
Solvent bottle
Solvent bottle
Mass-Reduction Idea
PolyOne®
Mucell®
3m Glass bubblesl®
Estimated Impact
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
8% Mass Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Cost reduction dur to faster cycle
times and lower press tonnage
Bottle may seep due to gas bubble
openings
High cost of material and has to be
pre-mixed
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas selected for detailed analysis are shown in Table 4.5-14.
Table 4.5-14: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Selected for the Wipers and Washers
Subsystem
w
CO
CD
3
~bT
03
—
CO
o-
"Sj
CD
3
_
16
CO
CO
c
*<
CD"
1b¥
99
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Wipers and Washers Subsystem
Misc.
Solvent bottle
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
PolyOne® foaming agent
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 493
4.5.3.5
Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
Table 4.5-15: Summary of Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Wipers and Washers
Subsystem
CB
3
03
03
03
Subsyster
a
16
16
16
4.43
0.00
0.07
4.50
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$2.23
$0.00
$0.06
$2.30
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"I" (2,
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$2.23
$0.00
$0.06
$2.30
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$0.50
$0.00
$0.84
$0.51
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.18%
0.00%
0,00%
0.18%
(1) "-•-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease,"-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 494
4.5.5 Body Group -D- Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Body System -D- and for the lightweighted system is
provided in Figure 4.5-8. The "Glass" content category was reduced by 2.0%, while
"Steel & Iron" increased by 1.7%.
Baseline Body System -D-
Total Body System -D-
Body Group D
Material Analysis
Body Group D
Material Analysis
17.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
77.9%
0.0%
100%
Material Categories:
9.105 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel 19.6%
0.000 3. Aluminum o.0%
0.000 4. Magnesium 0.0%
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet 0.0%
0.000 6. Rubber 0.0%
2.159 7. Plastic 0.0%
39.597 8. Glass 4.5%
0.000 9. Other 75.9%
I 0.0%
Material Categories:
9.105 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.000 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.000 6. Rubber
2.085 7. Plastic
35.168 8. Glass
0.000 9. Other
50.861 TOTAL
100%
46.358 TOTAL
Figure 4.5-8: Calculated Body System -D- Baseline Material and Total Material Content
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 495
4.6 Suspension System
The Suspension System is composed of four subsystems: the front suspension, rear
suspension, shock absorber, and wheels and tires (Table 4.6-1). The greatest mass is in
the Wheels and Tires Subsystem with approximately 52.7% of the total system mass.
Table 4.6-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Suspension System
to
%
(D
04
04
04
04
04
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Descriptor!
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Sys:em&
Subsyssm
Mass
'kg'
54.8
63.5
24.4
158.6
301.2
2454
12.3%
The Material Categories for the Baseline Suspension System are shown in Figure 4.6-1.
"Steel & Iron" is the leading category, with 53.6% (161.5 kg) of the overall mass,
followed by rubber at 20.2% (61.0 kg), and aluminum at 16.1% (48.5 kg). The "Other"
category includes assemblies that have multiple materials, such as ball joints and
stabilizer links.
Suspension System
Material Analysis
53.6%
16.1%
0.14%
20.2%
0.57%
9.34%
100%
161.5
0.0
48.5
0.0
0.42
61.0
1.73
0.0
28.1
301.2
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
TOTAL
Figure 4.6-1: Baseline Suspension System Material Distribution
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 496
Table 4.6-2 summarizes the total mass and cost impact by subsystem. The systems
largest savings were realized in the Rear Suspension Subsystem. Significant mass savings
were also found in the Wheels And Tires, and Front Suspension Subsystems. Detailed
system analysis with compounding resulted in 105.4 kg saved at a cost of $157.76,
resulting in a $1.50 per kg cost increase.
Table 4.6-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System
i
OJ
04
04
04
04
04
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Descriptor!
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Leve
Setec
C
D
B
X
D
Mass
R&dLCKH
•Kg'w
21.3
35.7
6.44
19.6
83.1
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
'$'{2)
-$23.71
-$113.47
-$3.77
-$119.89
-$260.84
(Increase)
Average
CosV
K cgra~
S/kg
41.11
-$3.17
-$0.58
-$6.13
-$3.14
(Increase)
Sys:enV
Subsys.
Mass
Reducion
•%'
7.08%
11.87%
2.14%
6.49%
27.6%
Vehicle
Mass
Redtc::r
•%'
0.87%
1.46%
0.26%
0.80%
3.39%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2J "-i-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.6.1 Front Suspension Subsystem
4.6.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image 4.6-1 shows the major suspension components in the Front Suspension
Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 497
Image 4.6-1: Front Suspension Subsystem
(Source: A2MAC1)
As seen in Image 4.6-2, the Front Suspension Subsystem consists of the major
components of the upper and lower control arms, front knuckle assemblies, front
stabilizer bar, bushings and mounts, and the miscellaneous attaching components.
Image 4.6-2: Front Suspension Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
As seen in Table 4.6-3, there are three sub-subsystems that make up the Front
Suspension Subsystem: the front suspension links/arms upper and lower, front suspension
knuckle assembly, and the front stabilizer (anti-roll) bar assembly. The most significant
contributor to the mass within this subsystem was found to be within the front suspension
links/arms upper and lower (approximately 57.9%), then the front suspension knuckle
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 498
assembly (approximately 28.0%), followed by the front stabilizer (anti-roll) bar assembly
(approximately 14.1%).
Table 4.6-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Suspension Subsystem
m
•£
(D
=)
04
04
04
04
cj
(D
g
01
01
01
01
00
cr
cr
^
(D
3
00
02
04
05
Description
Front Suspension Subsystem
Front Suspension Links/Arms Upper and Lower
Front Suspension Knuckle Assembly
Front Stabilizer (Anti-Roll) Bar Asm
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsys:em &
Sut>-
subsysjem
Mass
•kg'
31.7
15.3
7.73
54.8
301.2
2454
18.2%
2.23%
4.6.1.2
Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado Front Suspension Subsystem (Image 4.6-3) follows typical
industry standards for design and performance, which includes a focus on strength and
durability with least material cost. The material of choice with most components is steel.
Chevrolet also focuses on providing similar if not identical components across all
platform variants to take advantage of economies of scale in minimizing production
costs. However, this approach is not optimal for design efficiency based on applications
nor does it allow for maximum weight-versus-performance efficiency.
The following is a brief introduction to the components of the Front Suspension
Subsystem: The lower control arm assembly (Image 4.6-4) is an integrated design made
up of the control arm (Image 4.6-6), two rubber isolators (with steel tube inserts) and a
lower ball joint assembly (Image 4.6-5). The lower ball joint assembly is retained in the
lower control arm and attaches to the lower portion of the steering knuckle. The steering
knuckle (Image 4.6-7) is cast iron and precision machined. The upper control arm
assembly (Image 4.6-8), like the lower control arm assembly, is an integrated design
made up the upper control arm (Image 4.6-10), two bushing assemblies (with inner- and
outer-spacers and a rubber isolator), and an upper ball joint assembly (Image 4.6-9). The
upper ball joint assembly is retained in the upper control arm and attaches to the upper
portion of the steering knuckle. The upper ball joint assembly components include the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 499
housing, spindle shaft, socket boot, retaining rings, and grease. The Stabilizer Bar System
(Image 4.6-11) contains the stabilizer bar, bar mounts, mount bushings, and link
assemblies. The stabilizer bar (Image 4.6-13) is a hollow steel tube bent into shape with
pinched flanges and punched holes for mounting points. The stabilizer bar mounts
(Image 4.6-14) are of standard stamped steel construction brackets. The stabilizer bar
mount bushings (Image 4.6-15) are molded rubber isolators. The stabilizer link
assemblies (Image 4.6-16) are made from multiple components, including a threaded
steel rod with over-molded rubber, rubber isolators, and retaining fasteners.
Image 4.6-3: Front Suspension Subsystem Current Assembly
(Source: A2MAC1, top; andFEV, Inc., bottom)
4.6.1.2.1 Lower Control Arm Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front lower control arm assembly (Image 4.6-4)
is a cast iron construction with precision machining operations. The lower control arm
assembly has a mass of 10.8 kg. This assembly consists of the following components:
ball joint assembly and two rubber isolators (with steel tube inserts).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 500
Image 4.6-4: Lower Control Arm Assembly Current Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.1.2.1.1 Lower Ball Joint Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado lower ball joint assembly (Image 4.6-5) is a
multi-piece design assembly. The spindle is forged steel, machined and assembled with
various components including the socket boot, retaining rings, castle nut, and grease. The
overall assembly has a mass of 0.580 kg.
Image 4.6-5: Lower Ball Joint Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 501
4.6.1.2.1.2 Lower Control Arm
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado lower control arm (Image 4.6-6) is a cast iron
part with precision machining operations performed to meet OEM specifications. The
lower control arm has a mass of 9.55 kg. Control arms have traditionally been made from
either welded steel assemblies or cast from iron. This allowed for adequate strength and
component life without using more expensive processes or materials. Now, with
advances in materials and processing methods, other cost-effective choices are available
and are being utilized in aftermarket and high-performance applications as well as OEM
vehicle markets. Included among these alternate mediums are aluminum, titanium, steel,
magnesium, and metal matrix composites (MMC). Forming methods now include sand
cast, semi-permanent metal molding, die casting, machining from billet, and welded
fabrications.
Image 4.6-6: Lower Control Arm Current Sub-Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
While these alternatives are now designed with the strength and performance required,
they do include a significant cost-versus-mass increase. However, the weight savings
achieved is quite substantial and assists with reducing vehicle requirements for
suspension loads, handling, ride quality, and engine horsepower requirements. Another
advanced development includes using bulk molding compound with long, randomly
oriented carbon fiber. This continues to be of interest due to the ability to easily mold it
into complex shapes.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 502
4.6.1.2.2
Steering Knuckle
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado steering knuckle (Image 4.6-7) is a single-piece,
cast-iron knuckle of a standard design configuration and has a mass of 7.66 kg. Knuckles
are historically made from cast iron for strength and function. Over the last several years,
advances in alternative materials and processing methods have made new choices
available. Rather than cast iron only, aluminum alloys are now common and are used in
high-volume applications by many OEMs. This allows not only similar functional
performance but substantial weight savings along with minimal, if any, cost increase.
Image 4.6-7: Steering Knuckle Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.1.2.3 Upper Control Arm Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado upper control arm assembly (Image 4.6-8) is a
forged steel construction with precision machining operations to receive the bushing
assemblies and the ball joint assembly. The upper control arm assembly has a mass of
3.30 kg. This assembly consists of the upper control arm, ball joint assembly, and two
bushing assemblies (with inner- and outer-spacers and a rubber isolator).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 503
Image 4.6-8: Upper Control Arm Assembly Current Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.1.2.3.1 Upper Ball Joint Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado upper ball joint assembly (Image 4.6-9) is a
multi-piece design assembly. The spindle is forged steel, machined, and assembled with
various components including the socket boot, retaining rings, castle nut, and grease. The
overall assembly has a mass of 0.580 kg. No other viable, high-volume manufactured
alternate designs were found. Due to performance requirements for loading and strength,
no cost-effective material substitutions were identified for replacement. Therefore, it was
determined that a sizing and normalization activity would need to be performed based on
gross vehicle weight (GVW) to see if any opportunities exist.
Image 4.6-9: Upper Ball Joint Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 504
4.6.1.2.3.2 Upper Control Arm
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado upper control arm (Image 4.6-10) is forged steel
with precision machining operations performed to meet OEM specifications. The upper
control arm has a mass of 2.28 kg. Control arms have traditionally been made from either
welded steel assemblies, forgings, or cast from iron. This allowed for adequate strength
and component life without using more expensive processes or materials. Now with
advances in materials and processing methods, new cost-effective choices are available
are being utilized in aftermarket and high-performance applications as well as OEM
vehicle markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are aluminum, titanium, steel,
magnesium, and metal matrix composites (MMC). Forming methods now include sand-
cast, semi-permanent metal molding, die casting, machining from billet, and welded
fabrications.
Image 4.6-10: Upper Control Arm Current Sub-Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
While these alternatives are now designed with the required strength and performance,
they do add a significant cost-versus-mass increase. However, the weight savings
achieved is quite substantial and assists with reducing vehicle requirements for
suspension loads, handling, ride quality, and engine horsepower requirements. Another
advanced development includes using bulk molding compound with long, randomly
oriented carbon fiber. This continues to be of interest due to the ability to easily mold it
into complex shapes.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 505
4.6.1.2.4 Stabilizer Bar System
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado Stabilizer Bar System (Image 4.6-11) is standard
design and construction. The front stabilizer bar system includes a hollow steel bar,
molded rubber mount bushings, steel stamped brackets, steel and rubber stabilizer links,
and miscellaneous fasteners. This system has an overall mass of 7.73 kg. The system has
undergone some changes recently relative to design, materials, and processing. Steel bars,
besides being hollow, are now being made using alternative materials. Mounting
bushings are now being made with various plastics in order to increase rigidity and
increase life. Brackets and mountings are made now from new cast, forged, and molded
processes as well as utilizing new materials such as aluminum, titanium, magnesium, and
fiber reinforced plastics.
Image 4.6-11: Stabilizer Bar System Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Another trend in suspension stabilization technology is the integration of more
electronics. Electronic dampers allow a wide range between maximum and minimum
damping levels and adjust instantly to ensure ride comfort and firm vehicle control. By
integrating mechanical and electronic functions within the shock absorber system,
automakers can improve handling and potentially reduce costs as technologies mature.
BMW has redesigned a standard suspension piece to resolve some past suspension
problems. While roll bars or sway bars help control vehicle pitch, they are also a
detriment to ride quality because they transmit vibrations from one side of a vehicle to
the other.
To remedy this problem, BMW has developed Active Roll Stabilization (Image 4.6-12)
for its 7-series vehicles. On these vehicles, roll bars have evolved into two-piece hydro-
mechanical parts. Now, when one side of the vehicle noses sharply into a turn or drops
down to meet the road, a hydraulic motor located between the bars turns the roll bar on
the other side of the vehicle in a counter rotation motion, thereby keeping the entire
vehicle flat.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 506
Since the roll bar is separated into two pieces, vibrations from one side are not
transmitted to the other. That allows the two sides of the vehicle to be truly independent.
The result is a vehicle with improved handling and no trade-off in ride comfort while also
allowing a potential reduction in vehicle front end mass.
Image 4.6-12: BMW Active Roll Stabilization System
(Source: http://www.search-autoparts.com/searchautoparts/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=68222)
4.6.1.2.4.1 Stabilizer Bar
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front stabilizer bar (Image 4.6-13) is standard
construction with a hollow steel bar bent into shape and pinched flanges with punched
holes for mounting points. This bar has a mass of 6.52 kg. The stabilizer bar has been
redesigned in recent years. Design, materials and processing changes now allow the use
of alternative materials such as aluminum, titanium, hollow structural section (HSS), and
fiber reinforced composites. While these materials can effect performance and handling
under various conditions, significant mass savings can also be achieved.
Image 4.6-13: Front Stabilizer Bar Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 507
4.6.1.2.4.2 Stabilizer Bar Mountings
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front stabilizer bar mountings (Image 4.6-14) is
of standard construction. It has a mass of 0.230 kg. These brackets have had some
changes in design, materials and processing recently. Various configurations include
alternate materials for aluminum, magnesium, hollow structural sections (HSS), and
plastics. Process variations for manufacturing include casting, molding, and forging.
Image 4.6-14: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Current Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.1.2.4.3 Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado stabilizer bar mount bushings (Image 4.6-15) are
of standard design made of molded rubber. They have a mass of 0.078 kg. Mounting
bushings have recently had some changes in design, materials, or processing. Most
changes are in material differences; it is now common that nylons and urethanes are used
by many OEMs and nearly all aftermarket manufacturers. While there is a minimal
accomplishment in mass savings, there is a cost savings and a realized functional
performance enhancement.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 508
4.6.1.2.4.4
Image 4.6-15: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Current Components
(Source: http://www.wundercarparts. com)
Stabilizer Link Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado stabilizer link sub-assembly is standard steel and
rubber construction with a mass of 0.238 kg. This link assembly (Image 4.6-16) has had
little change in design, materials, or processing in recent years. Some alternative
materials, however, are being used by manufacturers.
Image 4.6-16: Stabilizer Link Current Sub-Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.1.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Automakers are deploying a wide variety of low-mass materials in new vehicle models
on all subsystems including front suspension systems. Implementations have been
documented showing reduced component mass for the same functionality using
alternative materials like high-strength steel, aluminum, magnesium, plastics and polymer
composites. Also, some notable ventures are into limited applications of magnesium, long
fiber polymer composites, and, in rare cases, carbon fiber, and titanium.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 509
The Chevrolet Silverado front suspension system is a "double wishbone" design that is
considered to have superior dynamic characteristics as well as load-handling capabilities.
The double wishbone suspension is often referred to as a double "A" arm or short long
arm (SLA) suspension. The double wishbone design is commonly used in sports cars,
luxury cars, and light trucks. Double wishbone designs allow the engineer to easily
control wheel motion throughout suspension travel and work out the loads which
different parts will bear. This allows the design of more optimized lightweight parts.
Design approaches for lightweighting the active components of the front suspension
system are primarily focused on high-strength steels (i.e., coil springs) and high-strength
aluminum (i.e., control arms). The progress has been slow over the years because of the
typically higher resultant costs compared to non-high-strength steels. However, recent
studies have shown cost comparisons near parity with well-designed parts using alternate
materials, primarily high-strength steel.
Another significant consideration is how the secondary mass reduction effects weight
reductions for all other vehicle subsystems. Less total vehicle mass reduces the
suspension loading, which provides opportunities to further reduce suspension mass.
During the last decade, basalt fiber has emerged as a contender in the fiber reinforcement
of composites. Proponents of this technology claim their products offer performance
similar to S-2 glass fibers at a price point between S-2 glass and E-glass, and may offer
manufacturers a less expensive alternative to carbon fiber for products in which the latter
represents over-engineering and much higher cost.
Another technology that bears watching is bulk compound molding using polymer
material filled with long carbon fiber.
Applications of basalt fiber and bulk-molded carbon fiber will be delayed indefinitely
because of limited production capacity. However, the continental United States has very
large deposits of basalt, such as the upper peninsula of Michigan. Basalt fiber research,
production, and most marketing efforts are based in countries once aligned with the
Soviet bloc. Companies currently involved in production and marketing include
Kamenny Vek (Dubna, Russia); Technobasalt (Kyiv, Ukraine); Hengdian Group
Shanghai Russia & Gold Basalt Fibre Co. (Shanghai, China); OJSC Research Institute
Glassplastics and Fiber (Bucha, Ukraine); Basaltex, a division of Masureel Holding
(Wevelgem, Belgium); Sudaglass Fiber Technology Inc. (Houston, Texas); and Allied
Composite Technologies LLC (Rochester Hills, Michigan).
Carbon fiber is also becoming increasingly popular here in the U.S. The 2013 SRT Viper
and the 2014 Chevrolet Corvette have carbon fiber hoods. The Corvette's production
could exceed 20,000 units this year. The cost of carbon fiber is estimated to be around
$10 to $15 per pound. For large components, such as the Viper and Corvette hoods, the
process is very long to make these parts relative to typical high-volume cycle times. The
relatively slow pre-preg technique used for making large parts is ill-suited to produce the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 510
complex shapes required for structural components. One alternative method for making
structural carbon fiber parts is the less expensive resin transfer molding process. With
resin transfer molding, the carbon fiber fabric is placed in a heated mold, and resin is
injected into the mold under high pressure. This method reduces the production time for a
component to usually less than 10 minutes.
Carbon fiber is clearly an up-and-coming material that all of Detroit's automakers are
looking to expand the use of into many different applications. One such part examined
for this report is the road wheel. According to Motor Authority, carbon fiber wheels are
being produced for a high-end vehicle that comes with a total stated price of $15,000.[43]
Regardless, GM formed a partnership with Teijin Ltd. of Japan to develop carbon fiber
composites for high-volume vehicles. In April 2012, Ford Motor Co. and Dow Chemical
Co. also announced a joint development agreement to establish an economical source of
automotive-grade carbon fiber and develop component manufacturing methods for high-
volume automotive applications.
4.6.1.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
The brainstorming activities generated the potential ideas as shown in Table 4.6-4 for the
Front Suspension Subsystem and its various components. The majority of these mass
reduction ideas offer alternatives to traditional steel and include part modifications,
material substitutions, processing, and fabrication differences, and use of alternative parts
currently in production and used on other vehicles and applications. In our team approach
to idea selection, we used judgment from extensive experience and research to prepare a
list of the most promising ideas.
43 http://www.motorauthoritv.com/news/1081342 carbon-fiber-wheels-a-costly-upgrade-but-better-performance
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 511
Table 4.6-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Suspension
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Front Suspension Subsystem
Upper Control Arm
Lower Control Arm
Lower Control Arm Bushing
Make out of cast
aluminum
Make out of forged
aluminum
Make out of welded
titanium tubing
Make out of cast steel
Replace from 2012
Dodge Durango
Make out of cast
magnesium
Make out of stamped
steel
Make out of Dupont
plastic
Make out of cast
aluminum
Make out of forged
aluminum
Make out of welded
titanium tubing
Pvlake out of cast steel
Replace from 2007
Ford F-150
Make out of Dupont
plastic
Make bushing spacer
(long) out of aluminum
Make bushing spacer
(long) out of plastic
Make rubber isolator
(long) out of nylon
Combine aluminum
spacer & nylon isolator
Combine plastic spacer
& nylon isolator
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-25% wt save
< 1% wt save
15-20% wt save
40-50% wt save
15-20% wt increase
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-25% wt save
< 1% wt save
15-20% wt save
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
<5% wt save
3040% wt save
3040% wt save
20-30% cost increase
20-30% cost increase
8-9x cost increase
Weaker control arm
15-20% cost increase
15-20% cost increase
15-20% cost save
Stil in development
20-30% cost increase
20-30% cost increase
8-9x cost increase
Weaker control arm
15-20% cost increase
Stil in development
15-20% cost increase
100% cost increase
5-10% cost save
10-15% cost increase
20-30% cost increase
Table 4.6-4 continued on next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 512
Table 4.6-4 (Cont'd): Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front
Suspension Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Front Suspension Subsystem Continued
Upper Control Arm Bushing
Ball Joint
Knuckle
Stabilizer Bar
Make inner bushing
spacer out of aluminum
Make outer bushing
spacer out of aluminum
Make rubber isolator
out of nylon
Combine two aluminum
spacers & nylon
isolator
Replace upper ball joint
from 2012 Dodge
Durango
Investigate lighter ball
joint in A2MAC1
Make out of forged
aluminum
Make out of cast
aluminum
Make out of forged
steel
Replace from 2006
Dodge Ram
Make out of solid
aluminum bar
Make out of hollow
aluminum bar
Make out of welded
titanium tubing
Make out of
glass/epoxy filament
winding (solid)
Make out of
carbon/epoxy filament
winding (solid)
Replace from 2012
GMC Sierra
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
< 5% wt save
40-50% wt save
5-10% wt save
5-10% wt save
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
<5% wt save
20-25% wt save
20-25% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-25% wt save
40-50% wt save
70-80% wt save
<2% wt save
20-30% cost increase
20-30% cost increase
5-10% cost save
20-30% cost increase
5-10% cost save
No lighter ball joint was found
in the Silverado vehicle class
20-30% cost increase
20-30% cost increase
Stronger control arm
10% cost increase
75-100% cost increase
50-75% cost increase
20-30% cost increase
5-6x cost increase
5-6x cost increase
15-20% cost increase
<2% cost save
Table 4.6-4 continued next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 513
Table 4.6-4 (Cont'd): Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front
Suspension Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Front Suspension Subsystem Continued
Stabilizer Bar Mounts
Stabilizer Bar Bushings
Make out of cast
aluminum
Make out of stamped
aluminum
Make out of cast
magnesium
Make out of poly
reinforced material
Remove (1) fastener
w/hook feature
Combine cast
aluminum & hook
feature
Combine stamped
aluminum & hook
feature
Combine cast
magnesium & hook
feature
Combine poly
reinforced brkt & hook
feature
Make out of ylon
70-80% wt save
70-80% wt save
20-25% wt save
60-70% wt save
10-15% wt save
60-70% wt save
60-70% wt save
10-15% wt save
10-15% wt save
5-10% wt save
20-30% cost increase
20-30% cost increase
7-8x cost increase
2-3x cost increase
10-15% cost save
30-40% cost save
30-40% cost save
6-7x cost increase
6-7x cost increase
5-10% cost save
4.6.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.6-5 shows a subset of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities that
were selected for detailed evaluation of both the achieved mass savings and the cost to
manufacture. Several ideas suggest alternative materials as well as part substitutions from
other vehicle designs.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 514
Table 4.6-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Front Suspension Subsystem Analysis
CO
><
(/)
ft-
CD
3
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
Subsystem
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Front Suspension Subsystem
Upper Control Arms
Lower Control Arms
Lower Control Arm Bushing (Long)
Lower Control Arm Bushing (Short)
Upper Control Arm Bushing
Upper Ball joint
Knuckle
Stabilizer Bar Mount
Stabilizer Bushings
Mass-Reduction Ideas selected for Detail
Evaluation
Normalize & make out of cast magnesium
Make out of forged aluminum
Make spacer out of plastic and bushing out of
nylon
Make spacer out of plastic and bushing out of
nylon
Make spacers out of aluminum and bushing
out of nylon
Normalize upper ball joint
Normalize & make out of cast aluminum
Make out of stamped aluminum & remove (1)
fastener w/hook feature
Make bushing out of nylon
The new mass-reduced Front Suspension System (Image 4.6-17) configuration is still
that of typical vehicle design utilized by nearly all OEMs. The reductions in mass
achieved were accomplished by improving and replacing individual sub-assemblies and
components. The overall design and function remains the same thus eliminating drastic
revisions causing significant vehicle interface redesigns.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 515
Image 4.6-17: Front Suspension Mass Reduced System
(Source http://www.fabtechmotorsports. com/products/uploads/image/susp-l/AArmCoilover2 WD4 WD.jpg)
4.6.1.5.1 Lower Control Arm Assembly
The solutions chosen to be implemented on the lower control arm assembly (Image
4.6-18) were the combination of a few ideas affecting the bushing assembly and the
lower control arm. The total mass of this new sub-assembly is 6.06 kg compared to the
baseline mass of 10.8 kg. These ideas included modifications to design, materials
utilized, and processing methods used to manufacture the lower control arm bushing
assembly and the lower control arm. The lower control arm assembly is made up of a
control arm, ball joint, and rubber isolator (with an inner spacer).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 516
Image 4.6-18: Lower Control Arm Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://www. laauto.com/content/articles/control-arms)
It should be noted that as late as 2009, General Motors offered two XFE (eXtra Fuel
Economy) models for the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra which included the
aluminum version of the 5.3L V-8, with Active Fuel Management (cylinder deactivation),
six-speed automatic transmission, low rolling resistance tires, 17-inch aluminum wheels,
and aluminum lower control arms. The aluminum control arms were eventually switched
back to cast iron due to cost reduction efforts. The 2014 Silverado comes equipped with
aluminum control arms and aluminum knuckles.
Additionally, Raufoss Technology, a privately held corporation fully owned by Neuman
Aluminum, has developed the aluminum lightweighting techniques, PreFormForge® and
ExtruForm®. These processes are used for lightweighting suspension components such as
the rear lower control arm assembly shown in Image 4.6-19.
Image 4.6-19: Buick Lacrosse Rear Control Arm
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 517
4.6.1.5.1.1 Lower Control Arm Bushing Assembly
The new lower control arm bushing assembly (Image 4.6-20) is still a multi-piece design,
with the spacer components now being made from aluminum instead of steel. This new
design utilizes aluminum for the inner bushing spacer and the bushing material is now
made from nylon. The long bushing assembly has a redesigned total mass of 0.230 kg
versus 0.390 kg for the baseline design and a redesigned total mass of 0.178 kg for the
short bushing assembly versus the baseline design of 0.303 kg.
Image 4.6-20: Lower Control Arm Bushing Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://www.kseriesparts.com/merchant.mvc)
The weight savings achieved is quite substantial and assists with reducing vehicle
requirements for suspension loads, handling, ride quality, and engine horsepower
requirements. Consideration must still be given to adequate validation testing to fit this
solution to particular vehicle requirements.
4.6.1.5.1.2 Lower Control Arm
Traditionally, control arms have been made from either welded steel assemblies or cast
from iron. This allowed for adequate strength and component life without using more
expensive processes or materials. Now, with advances in materials and processing
methods, other choices are available that have become more cost effective and are often
being utilized in aftermarket and by OEMs. Among some of these alternate mediums
include aluminum, titanium, steel, and magnesium. Forming methods now include sand
cast, semi-permanent metal molding, die casting, machining from billet, and welded
fabrications.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 518
The idea implemented for the lower control arm (Image 4.6-21) is to make the arm out of
forged aluminum. The redesigned lower control arm has a new net mass of 5.10 kg
compared to the baseline mass of 9.55 kg.
Image 4.6-21: Lower Control Arm Mass Reduced
(Source: http://www.bing.com/images/search? q=2009+silverado+xfe+lo'wer+control+arm)
A 2009 Chevrolet Silverado lower control arm shown Image 4.6-22) has a known mass
of 5.74 kg.
Image 4.6-22: 2009 Chevrolet Silverado Lower Control Arm Aluminum Forging
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 519
4.6.1.5.2 Upper Control Arm Assembly
The solutions chosen to be implemented on the upper control arm assembly (Image
4.6-23) was the combination of multiple ideas across several different components. The
total mass of this new assembly is 1.64 kg compared to the baseline mass of 3.44 kg.
These ideas included modifications to design, materials utilized, and processing methods
required for the upper ball joint, upper control arm, and the upper control arm bushing
assemblies. The redesigned upper control arm will be made from cast magnesium with a
chemical conversion coating to prevent corrosion and dissimilar material interactions.
The upper control arm bushing assembly is made up of an inner bushing spacer, outer
bushing spacer, and an isolator bushing. The redesigned bushing assembly will have the
inner and outer spacers made from aluminum and the isolator molded out of nylon. The
balljoint assembly will be normalized to the 2012 Dodge Durango.
Image 4.6-23: Upper Control Arm Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://i.ebayimg.com/t/02-05-Dodge-Ram-1500-Front-Upper-Control-Arm-Lower-Ball-Joint-Kit)
A potential for further mass reduction of the upper control arm is with a material
produced and distributed by SABIC's Innovative Plastics business called LNP™
VERTON™ compound. In Figure 4.6-2, a VERTON plastic-metal hybrid control arm
was modeled by SABIC and compared to a known aluminum control arm. The mass
savings opportunity is estimated to be approximately 30-40% lighter than the aluminum
version.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 520
VERTON Pl»t>c-M«ui Hybrid Control Arms:
Fore/An & Lateral SU* SWtoess
Resistance to Bauomt Pul-oul and Push Through Force*
• Strengvi tor Bucking. Potto* Panic Brake Loads
• Stone impact Resistance. Road San Corrosion Resistance
• Operating temperatures-40* to i50»C
Weight savings 30-40%
Figure 4.6-2: SABIC Lower Control Arm
(Source: SABIC)
Another technology successfully applied to lightweighting control arms is with Forged
Composite® technology, which is an advanced compression molding technique that uses
a synthetic composite material supplied by Quantum Composites and produced in an
alliance between Lamborghini and Callaway Golf Company in which bundles of
microscopic carbon fibers held together in a resin that is compressed to make almost any
shape. As seen in Image 4.6-24, the lower control arm for the Lamborghini Sesto
Elemento uses this new technology to reduce the mass of its front and rear upper and
lower control arms.
Image 4.6-24: Lamborghini Sesto Elemento Front Lower Control Arm
(Source: http.V/www.lambolab. org/wp-content/uploads/03research/pub/05chop/2011 -ASC-montreal-forged-
suspens-ICE.pdf)
4.6.1.5.2.1 Upper Ball Joint Sub-Assembly
The solution used for the ball joint assembly (Image 4.6-25) is a sub-assembly
substitution from the 2012 Durango application. No other viable high-volume
manufactured alternate design substitutions were found. Due to performance
requirements for loading and strength, no cost-effective materials were identified for
replacement. Therefore, it was determined that a sizing and normalization activity would
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 521
be applied based on GVW. The overall sub-assembly has a replacement mass of 0.529 kg
versus the baseline mass of 0.580 kg.
Image 4.6-25: Front Ball Joint Mass Reduced Sub-assembly
(Source: http://www.autopartswarehouse.com/shop_parts/balljoint/dodge/durango.html)
4.6.1.5.2.2 Upper Control Arm
Control arms have traditionally been made from either welded steel assemblies or cast
from iron. This allowed for adequate strength and component life without using more
expensive processes or materials. Now, with advances in materials and processing
methods, other choices are available that have become more cost effective and are often
being utilized in aftermarket and by OEMs. Among some of these alternate mediums are
aluminum, titanium, steel, and magnesium. Forming methods now include sand cast,
semi-permanent metal molding, die casting, machining from billet, and welded
fabrications. The idea implemented for the upper control arm (Image 4.6-23) was to
make the arm out of cast magnesium with a chemical conversion coating to prevent
corrosion and dissimilar material interactions. Although magnesium was not selected for
the lower control arm, it was selected for the upper control arm because of the weight
savings opportunity. Also, magnesium was chosen due to the reduced forces acting on the
upper control arm compared to the lower control arm. The new arm has a net mass of
0.759 kg while the baseline control arm is 2.28 kg.
4.6.1.5.2.3 Upper Control Arm Bushing Assembly
The new upper control arm bushing assembly (Image 4.6-26) is still a multi-piece
assembly, with the components now made from aluminum. This design utilizes
aluminum for the inner and outer bushing spacer, and the bushing is made from nylon.
This new assembly has a total mass of 0.174 kg compared to the baseline assembly mass
of 0.289 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 522
Image 4.6-26: Upper Control Arm Bushing Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source:http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=upper+control+arm+bushing+assembly)
The weight savings achieved assists with reducing vehicle requirements for suspension
loads, handling, ride quality, and engine horsepower requirements. Consideration must
still be given to adequate validation testing to fit this solution to particular vehicle
requirements.
4.6.1.5.3 Steering Knuckle
The new steering knuckle (Image 4.6-27) is a component substitution from the 2012
GMC Sierra application. In addition, the material will also be changed from steel to
aluminum. Due to replacing the steel with aluminum, an additional material volume of
40% was required. Aluminum alloys are now a common choice, used in high-volume
applications by many OEMs including GM, BMW, Audi, Honda, Toyota, Ford, and
Chrysler. Due to performance requirements for loading and strength, proper validation
testing would be required dependent upon the application. Therefore, it was determined
that a sizing and normalization activity would be applied based on GVW. The redesigned
knuckle has a replacement mass of 3.73 kg versus the baseline mass of 7.67 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 523
4.6.1.5.4
Image 4.6-27: Steering Knuckle Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Stabilizer Bar System
The proposed stabilizer bar system (Image 4.6-28) is of standard configuration, although
with a different design and construction. Rather than being composed of a solid steel
forged bar with molded rubber mount bushings and steel stamped brackets, it is still the
same baseline stabilizer bar, but with cast aluminum mounting brackets and nylon
bushings. Together, this new system has a reduced mass totaling 7.43 kg versus the
baseline system of 7.73 kg.
Image 4.6-28: Stabilizer Bar System Mass Reduced System
(Source: http://a248.e.akamai.net/origin-cdn.volusion.com/gcme7.tr5v2/v/vspfiles/photos/)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 524
4.6.1.5.4.1 Stabilizer Bar Mountings
The new stabilizer bar mounting brackets (Error! Reference source not found.29) are now
ade of die-cast aluminum. Due to the replacement of steel with aluminum, an additional
material volume savings of 50% was required. The mountings have an individual mass of
0.120 kg compared to the baseline mass of 0.230 kg.
These brackets were designed with a hook feature, thus eliminating one fastener per
bracket. These brackets have progressed with changes in design, materials, and
processing. These designs include alternate materials for aluminum, magnesium, hollow
structural section (HSS), and fiber plastics. Process variations for manufacturing include
casting, molding, and forging.
Image 4.6-29: Stabilizer Bar Mounting Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://store, vacmotorsports. com/beastpower—e39-rear-sway-bar-brackets-p2410. aspx)
4.6.1.5.4.2 Front Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushings
The redesigned front stabilizer bar mount bushings (Image 4.6-30) are of standard
design, but utilize an alternate material of nylon as opposed to rubber. The new bushings
have a mass of 0.067 kg compared to the baseline mass of 0.078 kg.
Many aftermarket and OEM manufacturers now utilize this new material choice for many
vehicle applications. This is due to improved handling performance, increase component
life, and even a small amount of mass reduction.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 525
Image 4.6-30: Stabilizer Bar Mount Bushing Mass-Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.suspensionconnection.com/cgi-bin/suscon/18-1116.html)
4.6.1.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.6-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Front Suspension Subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 21.3
kg and a cost hit differential of $23.71.
Table 4.6-6: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Suspension Subsystem
f
(D
3
04
04
J4
04
Cfl
§-
a>
%
(D
3
01
01
"b'i"
01
era
&
era
c
cr
I
00
02
03
04
Descriptor)
Front Suspension
Front Suspension Links/Arms Upper and
Lower
Front Suspension Knuckle Assembly
Front Stabilizer Bar Asm
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Setec
B
c
C
C
Mass
ReducSon
TTffl
13.1
7789
0.300
21.3
(Decrease)
Cos Impact
T(2)
-$10.99
""-$12.07
40.65
-$23.71
(Increase)
Average
Costf
Kikxjram
S/kg
-$0.84
-$1753
-$2.16
-$1.11
(Increase)
Subsys/ Su:b-
Subsys. Mass
Reducjon'%"
41.4%
5l'.4%
3.9%
38.9%
Vehcte
Mass
Reduction
•%•
0.54%
'6732%
0.01%
0.87%
(1) "•»-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 526
4.6.2 Rear Suspension Subsystem
4.6.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image 4.6-31 represents the major suspension components in the Rear Suspension
Subsystem and their relative location and position relevant to one another as located on
the vehicle rear end.
Image 4.6-31: Rear Suspension Subsystem
(Source: A2MAC1)
As seen in Image 4.6-32, the Rear Suspension Subsystem consists of the major
components of the leaf spring assembly: leaf springs, leaf spring bushings, shackle
bracket, shackle bracket bushings, saddle bracket, spacer blocks, U-bolts, and
miscellaneous attaching components.
Image 4.6-32: Rear Suspension Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 527
As seen in Table 4.6-7, the single sub-subsystem that makes up the Rear Suspension
Subsystem is the Rear Road Springs.
Table 4.6-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
GO
id-
CD
3
04
04
C/3
c
cr
O3
1
CD
3
02
02
to
c.
cr
GO
c
cr
w
•§
(D
3
00
01
Description
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Rear Road Springs
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
•kg'
63.5
63.5
301.2
2454
21.1%
2.59%
4.6.2.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
As with the front suspension, the Chevrolet Silverado's Rear Suspension System follows
typical industry standards. See Section 4.6.1.2 for additional front suspension
information.
The Chevrolet Silverado's Rear Suspension Subsystem (Image 4.6-33) follows typical
industry standards for design and performance. This includes a focus on strength and
durability with least material cost. Steel is the material of choice with most components.
Chevrolet also focuses on providing similar, if not identical, components across all
platform variants to take advantage of economies of scale in minimizing production
costs. However, this approach is not optimal for design efficiency based on applications
and does not allow for maximum weight versus performance efficiency.
A brief introduction to the components of the Rear Suspension Subsystem: The rear leaf
spring assembly (Image 4.6-34) is a standard steel fabrication with three leaf springs
(base, middle, and upper) stacked together with attachment points at each end of the
upper leaf spring. The leaf spring bushing assembly (Image 4.6-35) is a molded rubber
isolator with a rolled steel sleeve in the center and is encapsulated with a thin steel outer
tube. There are two different sized bushing assemblies: 2.75" diameter for the front
bushing assembly and 2.50" diameter for the rear bushing assembly. The shackle bracket
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 528
assembly (Image 4.6-36) attaches to the rear end portion of the leaf spring assembly and
connects the leaf spring assembly to the vehicle frame. The shackle bracket (Image
4.6-37) is a steel stamping with a rolled end to receive the shackle bracket bushing. The
shackle bracket bushing (Image 4.6-38) is a molded rubber isolator with a rolled steel
sleeve inserted into the center of the bushing. The saddle bracket (Image 4.6-39) is a
steel stamping that locates on the bottom of the rear axle and receives the U-bolts, which
clamp the leaf spring assembly to the rear axle. The spacer blocks (Image 4.6-33) spaces
the leaf spring assembly to the OEM specified height. The spacer is clamped in place
between the leaf spring assembly and the top of the rear axle. The U-bolts are specially
formed fasteners that clamp the leaf spring assembly to the rear axle. The spring bumper
is a molded stop that limits the amount of travel the rear axle can move by hitting the end
of the bumper.
Shackle Bracket
U-bolt
Spacer Block
Leaf Spring Bushing
Image 4.6-33: Rear Suspension Subsystem Current Assembly
(Source: A2MAC1)
4.6.2.2.1
Rear Leaf Spring Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado Rear Leaf Spring Assembly, Image 4.6-34, is a
multi-piece assembly, with the major portions being made from steel bar stock. The total
mass of this assembly is 26.2 kg. This assembly also consists of two rubber isolators with
inner and outer metal sleeves.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 529
Image 4.6-34: Rear Leaf Spring Current Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.2.2.2 Front and Rear Leaf Spring Bushing Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado leaf spring bushing assembly (Image 4.6-35) is a
multi-piece assembly, with the isolator portion being made from molded rubber. The
inner sleeve is a steel rolled tube while the outer sleeve is a steel stamped housing. The
front overall assembly has a mass of 0.439 kg, while the rear assembly has 0.342 kg.
Image 4.6-35: Front and Rear Leaf Spring Bushing Current Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.2.2.3 Shackle Bracket Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado Shackle Bracket Assembly (Image 4.6-36)
includes a steel stamping with a rolled end to receive the shackle bracket bushing. This
unit has a total mass of 0.845 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 530
Image 4.6-36: Shackle Bracket Current Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.2.2.4
Shackle Bracket
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado Shackle Bracket (Image 4.6-37) is a steel
stamping with a rolled end to receive the shackle bracket bushing and has a mass of 0.648
kg.
Image 4.6-37: Shackle Bracket Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 531
4.6.2.2.5
Shackle Bracket Bushing Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado Shackle Bracket Bushing Assembly (Image
4.6-38) is a molded rubber isolator with a rolled steel sleeve inserted into the center of the
bushing and has a mass of 0.197 kg. Sleeves are historically made from rolled steel sheet
for strength and function. Over the last several years, advances in alternative materials
and processing methods have made new choices available. Rather than steel only,
aluminum alloys are now a common choice and are used in high-volume applications by
many OEMs. This allows not only similar functional performance but substantial weight
savings along with minimal, if any, cost increase.
'
4.6.2.2.6
Image 4.6-38: Shackle Bracket Bushing Assembly Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Saddle Bracket
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado Saddle Bracket (Image 4.6-39) is standard design
and construction composed from stamped sheet steel. It has a mass of 1.30 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 532
Image 4.6-39: Saddle Bracket Current Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.2.2.7 Spacer Block
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado spacer block (Image 4.6-40) is standard design
and construction composed from cast iron. It has a mass of 1.51 kg.
Image 4.6-40: Spacer Block Current Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.2.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Automakers are deploying a wide variety of low-mass materials in new vehicle models
regarding all subsystems including suspensions. Implementations have been documented
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 533
showing reduced component mass for the same functionality using alternative materials
such as high-strength steel, aluminum, magnesium, plastics, and polymer composites.
Also, some notable ventures are into limited applications of magnesium, long fiber
polymer composites, and, in rare cases, carbon fiber and titanium.
Design approaches for lightweighting the active components of the Rear Suspension
System are primarily focused on higher strength steels (i.e., leaf springs) and high
strength aluminum (i.e., control arms). The progress has been slow over the years
because of the typically higher resultant costs relative to non-high strength steels.
However, recent studies have shown cost comparisons near parity with well-designed
parts using alternate materials, primarily high-strength steel.
Another significant mass reduction opportunity exists in the Rear Suspension System -
namely the leaf spring assembly. Traditional steel leaf springs are rectangular shape and
can be multi-stacked in order to obtain the desired spring load. Although there have been
advances in steel leaf spring design that have reduced the mass, they pale in comparison
to the mass savings opportunity that composites offer.
Glass fiber reinforced plastic (GFRP) leaf springs are used extensively in Europe and in
the U.S. on heavy-duty trucks and trailers. They are typically made from a glass fiber
fabric that is laminated and bonded by a polyester resin. The fiber strands are soaked with
resin and then wrapped together using a filament winding process and then squeezed
together under pressure to obtain the final shape.
LITEFLEX® LLC, a manufacturer of OEM composite leaf springs, has supplied
composite leaf springs since 1998 to support production requirements on the Sprinter
commercial vehicles, namely the NCV3 Sprinter. Other customers using Liteflex
composite leafs springs are the GM Corvette and Land Rover. Liteflex also produces
composite leaf springs for heavy duty truck applications for Kenworth, Peterbilt,
Freightliner, and International.
According to Senthilkumar Mouleeswaran, in his report Design, Manufacturing and
Testing of Polymer Composite Multi-Leaf Spring for Light Passenger Automobiles - A
Review. "From the design and experimental fatigue analysis of composite multi-leaf
spring using glass fiber reinforced polymer are carried out using data analysis, it is found
that the composite leaf spring is found to have 67.35% lesser stress, 64.95% higher
stiffness and 126.98% higher natural frequency than that of existing leaf spring. The
conventional multi leaf spring weighs about 13.5 kg whereas the E-glass/Epoxy multi
leaf spring weighs only 4.3 kg. Thus the weight reduction of 65.15% is achieved. Besides
the reduction of weigh, the fatigue life of composite leaf spring is predicted to be higher
than that of steel leaf spring."[44]
44http://cdn. intechopen. com/pdfs/3 03 5 3/In TechDesisn_manufacturins_and_
testing of polymer composite multi leaf spring for lisht passenger automobiles a review.pdf:
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 534
Another significant consideration should be the secondary mass reduction effects -
weight reductions for all other vehicle subsystems. Less total vehicle mass reduces the
suspension loading and provides opportunities to further reduce suspension mass.
4.6.2.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
The brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown in Table 4.6-6 for the Rear
Suspension Subsystem and its various components. The majority of these mass reduction
ideas offer alternatives to steel by utilizing material substitutions, part modifications,
processing and fabrication differences and use of alternative parts currently in production
and used on other vehicles and applications.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 535
Table 4.6-6: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear Suspension
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Leaf Spring
Leaf Spring Bushing
Spacer Block
Make out of high
strength steel
Make out of composite
epoxy resin (reinf
w/cont-glass-fiber
filaments)
Replace from 2012
GMC Sierra
Make spacer out of
aluminum
Make bushing out of
nylon
Make tube out of
aluminum
Eliminate tube using
new bushing type
Make spacer and tube
out of aluminum and
bushing out of nylon
Make spacer out of
aluminum, eliminate
tube and make bushing
out of nylon
Make out of forged
aluminum
Make ut of cast
aluminum
Make out of cast
magnesium
Make out of plastic with
inserter pin
Make from 2012 GMC
Sierra
5-10% wt save
~3x lighter
10-15% wt save
40-50% wt save
10-15% wt save
40-50% wt save
100% wt save
30-40% wt save
50-60% wt save
40-50% wt save
40-50% wt save
50-60% wt save
45-55% wt save
2-5% wt save
10-15% cost increase
60-75% cost increase
10-15% cost save
20-30% cost increase
10-15% cost save
20-30% cost increase
60-75% cost save
10-20% cost increase
15-20% cost save
30-40% cost increase
20-30% cost increase
50-60% cost increase
50-60% cost increase
2-5% cost save
Table 4.6-6 continued next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 536
Table 4.6-6 (Cont'd)
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Rear Suspension Subsystem Continued
Saddle Bracket
Shackle Bracket
Shackle Bracket Bushing
Make out of high
strength steel
Make out of stamped
aluminum
Make out of cast
magnesium
Make out of plastic
Make out of high
strength steel
Make out of welded fab
titanium
Make out of welded fab
aluminum
Investigate lighter
shackle in A2MAC1
database
Make spacer out of
aluminum
Make bushing out of
nylon
Make spacer out of
aluminum & bushing
out of nylon
5-10% wt save
50-60% wt save
60-70% wt save
50-60% wt save
5-10% wt save
20-30% wt save
45-55% wt save
5-10% cost save
40-50% cost increase
50-60% cost increase
45-55% cost increase
5-10% cost save
7-8x cost increase
70-80% cost increase
Silverado has the lowest mass shackle bracket
compared with other vehicles in the same weight
class
40-50% wt save
10-15% wt save
45-55% wt save
25-35% cost increase
10-15% cost save
10-15% cost increase
4.6.2.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.6-7 shows a subset of the ideas generated for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
that were selected for detailed evaluation of both mass savings achieved and
manufacturing cost. Also included are part substitutions from other vehicle designs, such
as those in use in the 2012 GMC Sierra.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 537
Table 4.6-7: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Rear Suspension Subsystem Analysis
CO
1— t-
CD
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
CO
1
i— t-
CD
3
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
CO
7
CO
1"
i— i-
0>
3
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Leaf Spring
Leaf Spring Bushing (2.75")
Leaf Spring Bushing (2.50")
Spacer Block
Saddle Bracket
Shackle
Shackle Bushing
Mass-Reduction Ideas selected for Detail
Evaluation
Normalize & make out glass filled reinforced
plastic
Eliminate tube, make spacer out of aluminum
and bushing out of Nylon
Eliminate tube, make spacer out of aluminum
and bushing out of Nylon
Make out of cast magnesium
Make out of cast magnesium
Make out of stamped aluminum
Make spacer out of aluminum and bushing out
of Nylon
The new mass reduced Rear Suspension System (Image 4.6-41) configuration is still that
of typical vehicle designs utilized by nearly all OEMs. The reductions in mass achieved
were accomplished by improving and replacing individual sub-assemblies and
components. The overall design and function remains the same thus eliminating drastic
revisions causing significant vehicle interface redesigns.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 538
Image 4.6-41: Rear Suspension Rotor Mass Reduced System Application Example
(Source: http://il08.photobucket.com/albums/n21/raymederos/DSCN1633.jpg)
4.6.2.5.1 Leaf Spring Assembly
The solution chosen to be implemented on the rear leaf spring assembly (Image 4.6-42)
was the normalization of size from a 2012 GMC Sierra leaf spring assembly and then to
make it of glass fiber reinforced plastic. The baseline design uses three leafs while the
redesigned leaf spring assembly will require only two. The total mass of this replacement
assembly is now 10.5 kg versus the baseline assembly mass of 26.2 kg.
Image 4.6-42: Rear Leaf Spring Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source:http://www.bing.com/images/search? q=Fiberglass+Leaf+Spring+Lightweight&FORM)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 539
4.6.2.5.2
Front and Rear Leaf Spring Bushing Assembly
The new leaf spring bushing assembly (Image 4.6-43) is still a multi-piece assembly,
with the isolator portion made from nylon instead of rubber. The inner sleeve is now an
aluminum rolled tube and the outer sleeve is eliminated. The front bushing assembly has
a new mass of 0.191 kg compared to the baseline mass of 0.439 kg while the rear bushing
assembly has a new mass of 0.133 kg versus the baseline mass of 0.342 kg.
4.6.2.5.3
Image 4.6-43: Front and Rear Leaf Spring Bushing Assembly
(Source: www.kseriesparts.com/merchant.mvc)
Lower U Bolt Spacer Block
The mass-reduced lower U-bolt spacer block (Image 4.6-44) is now made out of cast
magnesium. An additional 55% material volume was added in order to increase the
blocks strength relative to cast iron.
This new spacer has a mass of 0.568 kg compared to the baseline mass of 1.51 kg. (As
with all suspension components, proper validation must be performed based on the
vehicle performance requirements.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 540
Image 4.6-44: Lower U Bolt Spacer Block Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.rubiconexpress. com/images/tmck-and-jeep/parts/.jpg)
4.6.2.5.4 Saddle Bracket
The new saddle bracket (Image 4.6-45) is now made out of die casted magnesium. Due
to the replacement of steel with aluminum, an additional 40% material volume was
required. The saddle bracket now has a new mass of 0.491 kg versus the baseline mass of
1.30kg.
Image 4.6-45: Saddle Bracket Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.indiamart.com/svtechno-castings/steel-castings.html)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 541
4.6.2.5.5 Shackle Bracket Assembly
The solutions chosen to be implemented on the shackle bracket assembly, (Image 4.6-46)
was to make the shackle bracket from stamped aluminum, the bushing out of nylon, and
the bushing spacer out of rolled aluminum. This allowed for both an assembly mass and
cost reduction. The total mass of this replacement assembly is 0.444 kg versus the
baseline assembly mass of 0.845 kg.
Image 4.6-46: Shackle Bracket Mass Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://www. bing. com/images/search)
4.6.2.5.6 Shackle Bracket
The new shackle bracket (Image 4.6-47) is made from stamped aluminum. Due to the
replacement of steel with aluminum, an additional material volume of 40% was required.
Due to loading and strength performance requirements, proper validation testing would
be required dependent on the application. The new shackle bracket has a new mass of
0.317 kg compared to the baseline bracket mass of 0.648 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 542
Image 4.6-47: Shackle Bracket
(Source: http://thesuspensionking. com/catalog/index.)
4.6.2.5.7 Shackle Bracket Bushing Assembly
The redesigned shackle bracket bushing assembly (Image 4.6-48) is still of standard
design but utilizes an alternate material of nylon versus rubber for the bushing and the
inner sleeve is now rolled aluminum tube instead of steel. The bushing mass stays the
same at 0.059 kg while the spacer has a new mass of 0.068 kg compared to the baseline
mass of 0.138 kg.
Many aftermarket as well as OEM manufacturers now utilize this new bushing material
choice for many vehicle applications. This is due to improved handling performance,
increased component life, and in some cases a small amount of mass reduction.
Image 4.6-48: Shackle Bracket Bushing Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.cdxetextbook.com/steersusp/susp/layouts/bushes.html)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
JuneS, 2015
Page 543
4.6.2.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.6-8 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Rear Suspension Subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 35.7 kg
and a cost penalty differential of $113.47.
Table 4.6-8: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Rear Suspension Subsystem
CO
1
04
04
Subsystem
02
02
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
Descnpfcn
Rear Suspension
Rear Road Springs
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Leve
Setec
D
D
Mass
Rediraon
"kg" {1}
35.7
35.7
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
T(2)
-$113.47
-$113.47
(Increase)
Average
Cosst
KJogram
S/kg
-$3.17
-$3.17
(Increase)
Subsys/ Sub-
Subsys. Mass
ReducSon'%1
56.3%
56.3%
Vehicle
Mass.
Reducjon
'%'
1.46%
1.46%
(1) "-<-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.6.3 Shock Absorber Subsystem
4.6.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image 4.6-49 is a picture of the front strut assembly within the Shock Absorber
Subsystem. The strut assembly includes the strut sub-assembly, jounce bumper, coil,
upper and lower insulators, spring seat, upper strut mount, and associated hardware and
fasteners.
Image 4.6-49: Front Shock Absorber Subsystem Current Sub-Assembly Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 544
As seen in Image 4.6-50, the Front Strut Damper Subsystem consists of the strut sub-
assembly, jounce bumper, coil, upper and lower insulators, spring seat, upper strut mount,
and associated hardware and fasteners.
Image 4.6-50: Front Strut / Damper Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Table 4.6-9 shows that the Shock Absorber Subsystem consists of the front strut/damper
assembly and the rear strut/damper assembly. The most significant contributor to the
mass of the Shock Absorber Subsystem is the front strut/damper assembly
(approximately 79.9%) is followed by the rear strut/damper assembly (approximately
20.1%).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 545
Table 4.6-9: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Shock Absorber Subsystem
CO
*
03
04
04
04
Subsystem
03
03
03
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
Descriptor!
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Front Strut / Damper Asm
Rear Strut / Damper Asm
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsyssm
Mass
'kg'
1S.5
4.SS
24.4
301.2
2454
8.1%
0.99%
4.6.3.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado Front Strut/Damper Subsystems (Image 4.6-51) represent
typical industry standards. This includes a focus on functional performance and durability
with least material cost. Chevrolet also focuses on providing similar if not identical
components across all platform variants to take advantage of economies of scale in
minimizing production and purchasing costs.
Image 4.6-51: Front Strut Module Assembly Subsystem Current Configuration Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 546
4.6.3.2.1 Strut / Damper Module Assemblies
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front strut/damper module assemblies is a multi-
piece design of stamped steel fabrications welded into sub-assemblies along with various
molded and sub-assembled components that are then filled with fluid and charged to
pressure. The only components that were investigated for changes are the front strut coil
spring (Image 4.6-52) and the mounting rod assembly (Image 4.6-53). The front strut
assemblies have a combined total mass of 19.5 kg.
Many high-performance and luxury models such as BMW, Mercedes, Audi, and even
some GM vehicles utilize alternate materials and designs in order to improve mass and
expense across many of these components within these assemblies. These individual
components are reviewed and shown individually here in greater detail.
4.6.3.2.1.1 Front Strut Coil Springs
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front strut coil springs (Image 4.6-52) are single-
piece, steel hot-wound coil springs. This component has a mass of 5.53 kg for the front
springs. Some vehicle models and manufacturers have begun utilizing alternate materials
and design changes for springs including HSS and other steel alloy variations. Other
materials, including long fiber polymers, have successfully been implemented for leaf
spring applications as well as coil spring applications on small passenger cars.
Image 4.6-52: Front Strut Coil Spring Current Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.3.2.1.2 Front Strut Mounting Shaft Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front strut mounting shaft assembly is a single-
piece steel design and has a mass of 1.16 kg. Mounting shafts (Image 4.6-53) have
normally been made from forged steel for adequate strength and function. Now, with
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 547
advances in materials and processing methods, other choices are available and being
utilized in aftermarket and high-performance applications as well as OEM vehicle
markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are aluminum, titanium, steel, and
magnesium. Forming and fabrication methods include casting, forging, and billet
machining.
Image 4.6-53: Front Strut Mounting Shaft Current Assembly Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.3.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Basic trends in shock absorber technology include low mass materials where function is
not deteriorated. Also, high strength steel is used for mass reduction of springs, notably in
Alfa Romeo and BMW vehicles.
Audi has recently announced their decision to launch the new A6 Avant Ultra using
Composite (Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic) coil springs (Image 4.6-54). The composite
coil springs will weigh approximately 4 kg lighter than the traditional steel springs.
Image 4.6-54: First Composite Material Coil Springs glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)
(Source: http://articles.sae. org/13642/)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 548
Another trend in shock absorber technology is integrating more and more electronics.
Electronic dampers allow a large range between maximum and minimum damping levels
and adjust instantly to ensure ride comfort and firm vehicle control. By integrating
mechanical and electronic functions within the shock absorber system, automakers can
improve handling and potentially reduce costs as technologies mature.
Delphi has developed the MagneRide™ concept (Image 4.6-55), in which a Magneto-
Rheological (MR) fluid passes through an orifice that can be "restricted" by applying an
electric field. The MagneRide system produces a mechanically simple but very
responsive and controllable damping action without any valves. Synthetic hydraulic oil
contains suspended iron particles. When surrounded by a magnetic field, these particles
realign, changing the viscosity of the fluid.
These MR shocks and struts feature a tube which rides on a stationary internal piston
containing an electromagnet. When current is fed to the magnet, the surrounding MR
fluid instantaneously changes viscosity to resist the tube/piston movement in a way that
best copes with road conditions. According to Delphi, the fluid transforms within a
millisecond from the consistency of mineral oil (to compensate for low dampening
forces) to a thin jelly consistency for high dampening.
Since the viscosity of the MR fluid can be infinitely varied through changes in the
current, Delphi shocks and struts are designed to provide a far greater dampening range
compared with conventional shocks. This translates into a smoother and more responsive
ride. As the tube is the only moving part, the shock is more trouble-free and should not
wear out as quickly as conventional shocks. As for other advantages, Delphi says its new
technology reduces suspension weight and overall costs.
Image 4.6-55: Delphi MagneRide™ Strut System
(Source: http://www.sear'ch-autoparts.com/searchautoparts/ar'ticle/articleDetail.jsp?id=68222)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 549
4.6.3.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
The brainstorming activities generated the ideas shown below for the Front Strut/Shock
Absorber/Damper Sub-subsystems (Table 4.6-10). The majority of these mass reduction
ideas are related to technologies in production on other vehicles and alternatives to steel.
This includes part modifications, material substitutions, and use of parts currently in
production on other vehicles.
Table 4.6-10: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front
Strut/Shock/Damper Sub-Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Spring
Lower Strut Mounting
Assembly
Make out of titanium
alloy (Timetal LCB)
Make out of high
strength steel
Make from Mubea
spring winding process
Replace from 2012
Dodge Durango
Make out of forged
aluminum
Make bushing out of
nylon
Make rod out of
aluminum & bushing
out of nylon
20-30% wt save
5-10% wt save
20-30% wt save
30-40% wt save
40-50% wt save
10-15% wt save
30-40% wt save
5-6x cost increase
10-20% cost save
20-30% cost save
30-40% cost save
20-30% cost increase
10-20% cost save
5-10% cost increase
4.6.3.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.6-11 shows the subsets of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities
listed in the previous chart for the Front Strut/Shock Absorber/Damper Sub-subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 550
Table 4.6-11: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Shock Absorber Subsystem
CO
"w
CD
3
04
04
04
CO
C
C/)
C/)
1— 1-
CD
3
03
03
03
CO
rr
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 551
and the lower mount assembly (Image 4.6-58). The new mass-reduced front strut
assembly has a mass of 6.51 kg versus the baseline mass of 9.73 kg.
4.6.3.5.1.1 Front Strut Coil Spring
The selected solution for the front strut coil springs (Image 4.6-57) is to form the coil
springs using Mubea's primary steel material and winding process.
The springs are produced using wire rod that is drawn and inductively hardened to tensile
strengths of up to 2,100Mpa. Due to the replacement of steel with Mubea's high strength
steel, these new springs have an individual mass of 2.73 kg compared to the baseline
spring of 5.53 kg.
Image 4.6-57: Front Strut Coil Spring Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.mubea.com/products-technologies/automotive/suspension/suspension-coil-springs/)
4.6.3.5.1.2 Front Lower Strut Mounting Assembly
The changes made on the front lower strut mounting assembly (Image 4.6-58) are to use
forged aluminum instead of steel for the shaft and change the rubber isolator to nylon.
Due to this replacement of steel to aluminum, an additional material volume of 40% was
required. Mounting shafts have normally been made from various grades of steel for
adequate strength. Now with advances in materials and processing methods other choices
are available and being utilized in aftermarket and high-performance applications as well
as some OEM vehicle markets. Among some of these alternate are aluminum and
titanium. Forming and fabrication methods include forging and billet machining. The
bushings are still of standard design but utilize an alternate material of nylon instead of
rubber. The bushings have an individual mass of 0.398 kg versus 0.464 kg for the
baseline bushings and the shafts have an individual mass of 0.341 kg versus the baseline
mass of 0.697 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 552
Many aftermarket and OEM manufacturers now use this new material choice for many
vehicle applications. This is due to improved handling performance, increase component
life, and even a small amount of mass reduction.
Image 4.6-58: Front Strut Mounting Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.track-star.net/store/corvette-c6-z06-suspension/)
4.6.3.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.6-12 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Shock Absorber Sub-subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 6.4
kg and a cost increase differential of $3.77.
Table 4.6-12: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Shock Absorber Subsystem (Front
Strut/Damper Assembly Sub-Subsystem)
GO
I
04
J4
£
cr
f
CD
3
03
03
fj-j
C
cr
oo
&
tn
f
&
00
01
Descnpson
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Front Strut / Damper Asm
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Setec
B
B
Mass
Reduoon
-" = mass decrease,"-" = mass increase
{2| "-•-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 553
4.6.4 Wheels and Tires Subsystem
4.6.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image 4.6-59 shows the relative location of the road wheel and tire sub-assemblies and
the spare wheel and tire sub-assembly on the vehicle chassis.
Image 4.6-59: Road Wheel and Tire Position Diagram
(Source: http://image.trucktrend.eom/f/31572814+w750+stO/201 l-chevrolet-silverado-HD-frame.jpg)
The following images represent the major sub-assemblies and components in the Wheels
and Tires Subsystem. These include the road wheel and tire assembly (Image 4.6-60) and
the spare wheel and tire assembly (Image 4.6-63). The current OEM Chevrolet Silverado
Wheels and Tires Subsystem have a total mass of 158.6 kg.
In Table 4.6-13, the Wheels and Tires Subsystem consists of the Road Wheels and Tire
Assembly Sub-subsystem and the Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly Sub-subsystem. The
most significant contributors to the mass of this subsystem are the Road Wheels and Tire
Assembly Sub-subsystem (approximately 75.4%) followed by the Spare Wheel and Tire
Assembly Sub-subsystem (approximately 24.6%).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 554
Table 4.6-13: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Wheels and Tires Subsystem
00
i
(D
3
04
04
04
CO
c
cr
tn
t
CD
^
04
04
04
to
c
CT
CO
c
cr
en
•§
CO
3
00
01
02
Description
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Road Wheels and Tire Assembly
Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsys:em
Mass
•kg'
119.6
3S.D
158.6
301.2
2454
52.7%
6.46%
4.6.4.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado Wheels and Tires Subsystem represent typical industry
standards. This includes a focus on style, functional performance and durability with least
material cost. Chevrolet also focuses on providing similar, if not identical, components
across all platform variants to take advantage of economies of scale in minimizing
production and purchasing costs.
4.6.4.2.1
Road Wheel and Tire Assemblies
The Silverado uses four standard road wheel and tire assemblies (Image 4.6-60) with
radial molded tires mounted on an aluminum rims. The current OEM Silverado Road Tire
Assembly Sub-subsystem has a total mass of 119.4 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 555
Image 4.6-60: Road Wheel and Tire Current Assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.4.2.2
Road Wheels
The Chevrolet Silverado OEM road wheels (Image 4.6-61) are single-piece, cast
aluminum design. The size of OEM wheel used on the Silverado is an 18-inch outer
diameter by 8-inch wide. Although alternate materials (magnesium, GF polymers, and
carbon fiber) exist and are used by some aftermarket manufacturers, they are uncommon
and very ineffective for cost in most applications. The current Silverado road wheels,
four wheels, have a total mass of 48.5 kg.
Image 4.6-61: Road Wheel Current Component
(Source: http://www. originalw heels. com/chevrolet-wheels/silverado2011rims.php)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 556
4.6.4.2.3 Road Tires Sub-Assembly
The Chevrolet Silverado OEM road tires are multi-layer design of various materials all
over-molded NR. The size of the OEM tire used on the Chevrolet Silverado is
P265/65R18. Alternate material variations are used for the internal layers as well as the
final over-molding compound. But manufacturers use these variables to help tune a
specific tire design to the performance desired for a particular vehicle application. Image
4.6-62 shows a common tire design and the features and the naming nomenclature
associated with it. No significant material developments exist that allow any appreciable
weight savings while maintaining a standard design configuration. The current Silverado
road tires, four tires, have a total mass of 69.5 kg.
Tr*adAr»« /R(b ^Tr*»d Block
.Grooves
> Sipo -,
• Bead Chaffers
Bead
Image 4.6-62: Road Wheel Current Component Design Example
(Source: http://www.vbattorneys.com/practice_areas/defective-product-lawyer-product-liability-attorney-houston-
texas.cfm)
4.6.4.2.4 Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly
The spare wheel and tire assembly (Image 4.6-63) is a typical narrow (and short side-
walled) molded spare tire mounted on a large diameter, stamped steel wheel assembly.
The current OEM Chevrolet Silverado Spare Tire Assembly Sub-subsystem has a mass of
39.0kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 557
Image 4.6-63: Spare Wheel and Tire Current Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/2007-2011-Silverado-Sierra-1500-GM-SUV-Spare)
4.6.4.2.4.1 Spare Wheel
The Chevrolet Silverado OEM Spare Wheel (Image 4.6-64) has a large diameter and
narrow, stamped steel fabrications. Although alternate materials (aluminum, magnesium,
GF polymers, and carbon fiber) exist, they are not typically used for spare wheels due to
lack of mass versus cost reduction. Therefore, they are not used by any manufacturer,
although they could. The current OEM Silverado spare wheel has a 14.5 kg mass.
Image 4.6-64: Spare Wheel Current Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 558
4.6.4.2.4.2 Spare Tire Sub-Assembly
The Chevrolet Silverado OEM spare tire (Image 4.6-65) is multiple layers of steel and
plastic, over-molded by NR. Alternate material variations are used for the internal and
external layers, but manufacturers use these variables to help tune a specific tire design to
the desired performance. The current OEM Chevrolet Silverado spare tire has a mass of
17.0kg.
Image 4.6-65: Road Wheel Current Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.6.4.2.5
Lug Nuts
The lug nuts, or wheel fastener nuts (Image 4.6-66), are a typical cold-headed steel
configuration with a stamped steel, chrome-plated shell pressed over the nut surface. The
current OEM Chevrolet Silverado lug nuts (24 pieces) have individual mass of 0.042 kg.
Image 4.6-66: Lug Nut Current Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 559
4.6.4.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The ICCT Lotus Engineering report of March 2010 ("An Assessment of Mass Reduction
Opportunities for a 2017-2020 Model Year Program") describes several industry
examples including Alcoa aluminum forged wheels, carbon fiber composites, two-piece
low-mass wheels, Michelin Tweel, and Active Wheel designs.
New proprietary magnesium alloys are being developed for racing applications, including
wheels and lug nuts, with claims of matching the strength of steel with impressive mass
reduction.
As mentioned in Section 4.6.1.3, basalt fiber is a potential low cost substitute for carbon
fiber when production capabilities can support automotive quantities.
Tire technology has also seen advancement in recent years: Goodyear's Air Maintenance
Technology (AMT) system automatically keeps tires inflated to the optimum pressure
without any human intervention. An internally mounted valve detects a low-pressure
condition and then automatically opens up to allow airflow into the tire as it rolls down
the road.
Ecopia tires, from Bridgestone (as seen on the Nissan Leaf), improves rolling resistance
by 36%, which equates to a 4% fuel economy improvement.
Bridgestone also recently announced the development of its "Large and Narrow Concept
Tire." This technology helps achieve improved fuel economy which reduces CO2
emissions. Additionally, the air pressure is greater than conventional tires, the tread
design incorporates new pattern styles, and new materials are designed specifically for
use in these tires. Consequently, this tire design allows for a significantly lower rolling
resistance yet higher road grip performance.
Yokohama has a patented process that infuses the tire tread rubbers with the natural oil
from orange peels. Yokohama calls this petroleum-reduced compound Super Nano-
Power Rubber™ (SNPR), claiming it improves tread life and reduces rolling resistance.
This technology was initially utilized in Yokohama's dB Super E-spec™ tire.
Cooper Tire states in its report titled "Improving Vehicle Fuel Efficiency through Tire
Design, Materials, and Reduced Weight" that it has been working with the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory to develop a new class of tires that improves fuel
efficiency by a minimum of 3% and reduces overall tire weight by 20%. The report says
the strategy is to "evaluate partial replacement (levels) of carbon black and silica with
nano-fiber reinforcement in tire component compounds for optimum performance/cost
opportunities."
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 560
4.6.4.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
The brainstorming activities for Wheels and Tires Subsystem generated the ideas shown
in Table 4.6-14. The majority of these mass reduction ideas are related to technologies in
production on other vehicles and size alternatives. There are also ideas that cover part
design modifications as well as material substitutions.
Table 4.6-14: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Wheels and Tires
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
AIITires(P225/60R19)
All Wheels (19x7.5)
Lug Nuts
Spare Tire & Wheel
Replace from 2012
CMC Sierra
Ultra-It wt forged
aluminum wheels
Lt wt wheels (hybrid
glass & carbon fiber
composite)
Replace from 2006
Dodge Ram
Make out of aluminum
Make out of titanium
Add lightening holes in
spare wheel
Make spare wheel out
of aluminum
Lt wt wheels (hybrid
glass & carbon fiber
composite)
Replace wheel from
2006 Dodge Ram
Replace tire from 2006
Dodge Ram
Eliminate spare tire &
spare tire hold down
10-20% wt save
15-20% wt save
40-50% wt save
1-5% wt save
40-50% wt save
20-30% wt save
1-5x wt save
40-50% wt save
4-5x wt save
4-5x wt save
1-5x wt save
100% wt save
10-15% cost save
10-15% cost increase
1-2x cost increase
1-5% cost save
10-20% cost increase
4-5x cost increase
1-5% cost save
45-55% cost increase
2-3x cost increase
2-3x cost increase
1-5% cost save
100% cost save
4.6.4.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.6-15 shows the mass reduction ideas for the major components of the Wheels
and Tires Subsystem that were chosen for detailed evaluation. There are five components
outlined that are being redesigned and changed in order to achieve mass reductions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 561
Table 4.6-15: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Wheels and Tires Subsystem Analysis
CO
><
(/)
1— 1-
CD
3
04
04
04
04
04
04
Subsystem
04
04
04
04
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Wheels & Tires Subsystem
AIITires(P225/60R19)
All Wheels (19x7.5)
Lug Nuts
Spare Tire Wheel
Spare Tire
Mass-Reduction Ideas selected for Detail
Evaluation
Normalize to 2007 Ford F150
Make out of ultra-It wt forged al wheels (cross-
spoked)
Make lug nuts out of aluminum
Make spare tire wheel out of aluminum
Normalize to 2006 Dodge Ram
The mass-saving solutions selected for the various components within the Wheel and Tire
Subsystem are primarily by component substitution from the 2007 Ford F150 and the
2006 Dodge Ram, as well as material substitution and manufacturing processes. The
details of these changes vary greatly and are summarized in greater detail in the following
sections.
4.6.4.5.1
Road Wheel and Tire Assemblies
The solution selected for the road wheel and tire assemblies (Image 4.6-67) is to
substitute the current OEM tires with those from the 2007 Ford F150 and make material
substitutions for the road wheels. This would change the effective mass without altering
the effective design content or visual aspect in relation to the vehicle appearance. Both
vehicles have aluminum cast rims and similar tire profiles. The new implemented road
wheel and tire assemblies, four pieces, have a total mass of 106.3 kg versus the baseline
total mass of 118.0 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 562
Image 4.6-67: Road Wheel and Tire Mass-Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://www. sgmerc. com/topic/8 751 -show-us-your-bbk-rims/page-6)
4.6.4.5.1.1 Road Wheels
The chosen mass reduction for the road wheels (Image 4.6-68) is to use an ultra-light
weight forged aluminum (cross-spoked) wheel design. This new road wheel, four pieces,
has a total mass of 42.4 kg versus the baseline total mass of 48.5 kg.
Image 4.6-68: Road Wheel Mass-Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.auto-technik.com.sg/index.aspx?MenuID=36)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 563
4.6.4.5.1.2 Road Tire
The solution selected for the road tire assemblies (Image 4.6-69) is a substitution of
using the 2007 Ford F150 as a replacement. The size of the tire used on the 2007 F150 is
P265/60R18. This size was normalized up to a P265/65R18 in order to maintain the
appearance and handling function of the current Silverado. The new road tire assemblies,
four pieces, have a total net mass of 63.9 kg compared to the total baseline mass of 69.5
kg.
I
Image 4.6-69: Road Wheel Mass-Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://a2macl.com)
4.6.4.5.2
Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly
The chosen solutions being implemented for the spare wheel and tire assembly (Image
4.6-70) is to substitute a 2006 Dodge Ram tire and replace the steel wheel with an
aluminum wheel. The design configuration and construction is the same and will not
affect function or performance. The mass-reduced spare wheel and tire assembly has a
mass of 24.1 kg versus the total baseline mass of 31.5 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 564
Image 4.6-70: Spare Wheel and Tire Mass-Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://www.ebay.com/)
4.6.4.5.2.1 Spare Wheel
The new redesigned spare wheel (Image 4.6-71) is a cast aluminum wheel. The new
mass reduced spare wheel has a mass of 9.24 kg versus the baseline mass of 14.5 kg.
Image 4.6-71: Spare Wheel Mass-Reduced Assembly
(Source: http://wv.autopartswarehouse.com/shopjiarts/vheel/gmc.html)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 565
4.6.4.5.2.2 Spare Tire
The mass reduced spare tire assembly (Image 4.6-72) was achieved by replacing the
Silverado tire with the 2006 Dodge Ram tire. This resulted in a new mass of 14.9 kg
versus the baseline mass of 17.0 kg.
Image 4.6-72: Road Wheel Mass-Reduced Component
(Source:http://a2macl.com/Autoreverse/reversepart. asp?productid=103&clientid=l&producttype=2)
4.6.4.5.3
Lug Nuts
The lug nuts (Image 4.6-73) were standard steel configuration, as true with most OEMs.
The new solution implemented for these fasteners was to use aluminum material with a
conical interface design. Due to the replacement of steel with aluminum, an additional
material volume of 50% was required. This style of lug is commonly used by aftermarket
manufacturers due to tremendous weight savings and reduction to unsprung rotational
mass. The new lug nuts (24 pieces) are calculated to have a total new mass of 0.504 kg
compared to the total baseline mass of 1.01 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 566
Image 4.6-73: Lug Nut Mass-Reduced Component Examples
(Source: http://www.rjracecars.com/Aluminum-Lug-Nuts-5818-Black-Prodview.html)
4.6.4.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.6-16 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Wheels and Tires Subsystem. The implemented solutions resulted in a subsystem overall
mass savings of 19.6 kg and a cost increase of $119.89.
Table 4.6-16: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Wheels and Tires Subsystem
CO
%
(D
3
04
04
04
CO
c:
cr
•%
I
04
04
"04"
CO
c
cr
CO
CT
f
(D
00
01
~Q2"
Descriptor;
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Road Wheels and Tire Assembly
Spare Wheel and Tire Assembly
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Lev's
Setec
X
D
X
Mass
ReducSon
"*g*
12.2
7"39
19.6
(Decrease)
Coa Impact
"**(?>
-$96,89
-$23.00
-$119.89
(Decrease)
Average
Cos:'
Ktogram
S/kg
-$7.96
40,11
-$6.13
(Decrease)
Subsys/ Sub-
Subsys. Mass
ReducSon "%'
7.7%
4.7%
12.3%
Vehicle
Mass
Reducfon
•%'
0.50%
0.30%
0.80%
(1) "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.6.5 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
4.6.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The intent of investigating secondary mass savings is to quantify how much suspension
mass could be further reduced by reducing the vehicle mass.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 567
To calculate the allowable secondary mass reduction (Table 4.6-17), the Chevrolet
Silverado curb weight was added to the tongue and payload weights to obtain a baseline
result. Next, the curb weight was reduced by 20% and added to the tongue and payload
weights to obtain a mass reduction result. The mass reduction and baseline results were
ratioed to obtain the allowable mass reduction factor of 12.7%.
Table 4.6-17: Allowable Secondary Mass Reduction Calculation
We 873
2454
499
873
12.1
Suspension system components such as control arms, coil springs, leaf springs, wheels
and tires are sized by vehicle mass. Secondary mass savings (Table 4.6-18) were derived
from reduced component masses previously calculated for lightweighting technologies.
All other components like those associated with the accessories and fasteners were not
affected and masses were unchanged. The result is 22.4 kg of additional mass savings
based on downsizing.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 568
Table 4.6-18: Chevrolet Silverado Suspension Compounded Mass Savings by Component
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Component
Lower Control Arms (2}
Upper Control Arms (2)
Knuckle, Steering (2|
Leaf Spring Asm (2)
Coil Spring (2)
Road Wheels (4)
Road Tires (4)
Spare Wheel
Spare Tire
Total (kg)
New
Mass
(kg)
10.2
1.52
7.46
21
5.46
42
64
9.24
15
176
Downsizing Approach
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
%
Reduction
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12.8
12 8
12 8
12,8
Compounded
Mass Savings
(kg)
1.31
0.194
0.95
2.68
0.699
543
8
1.18
1.90
23
Material savings for compounded components was totaled to estimate the cost impact of
downsizing. Labor and burden costs were considered unchanged.
Table 4.6-19 details mass and cost impact of all lightweighting activities and
compounding. These figures are based on downsizing the already lightweighted concept
as outlined in previous sections. The total mass savings achieved for the Suspension
System is 105.4kg.
Table 4.6-19: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Suspension System Secondary Mass Savings
u>
g
04
04
04
04
04
U)
CT
OT
(fl
3
DO
01
02
03
04
CO
cr
Cfl
5-
fD
3
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Suspension System
Front Suspension Subsystem
Rear Suspension Subsystem
Shock Absorber Subsystem
Wheels And Tires Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
P»1ass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,i)
21.3
35.7
6.44
19.6
83.1
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (D
2.44
2.66
0.694
16.6
22.4
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"(i)
23.8
38.4
7.14
36.1
105.4
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$"(2)
423.71
4113.47
43.77
4119.89
-$260.84
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
T'<2)
$10.07
$29.42
$2.88
$63.57
$105.94
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
413.64
484.06
40.89
456.32
-$154.90
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
40.57
42.19
40.12
41.56
-$1.47
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
Total
1.0%
1.6%
0.3%
1.5%
4.30%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
|2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 569
4.6.6 Suspension System Material Analysis
The Material Categories for the Baseline Suspension System and for the Total Mass
Reduced Suspension System is shown in Figure 4.6-3. "Steel & Iron" was reduced from
161.5 kg (baseline mass) to 31.6 kg (total mass reduced), while aluminum increased from
48.5 kg (baseline mass) to 62.8 kg (total mass reduced). Magnesium also increased from
0.0 kg (baseline mass) to 3.45 kg (total mass reduced). Rubber decreased from 61 kg
(baseline mass) to 47.4 kg (total mass reduced). Finally, the category labeled "Other"
decreased from 28.1 kg (baseline mass) to 24.3 kg (total mass reduced) due to the
compounding effect of the road and spare tires.
Baseline Suspension System
Suspension System
53.6%
16.1%
0.14%
20.2%
0.57%
9.34%
Total Mass Reduced Suspension System
Material Categories:
161.5 1. SteelS Iron
0.0 2. H.S. Steel
48.5 3. Aluminum
0.0 4. Magnesium
0.42 5. Foam/Carpet
61.0 6. Rubber
1.73 7. Plastic
0.0 8. Glass
28.1 9. Other
Suspension System Material
Analysis
17.8%
2.7%
35.4%
1.9%
0.2%
26.7%
1.6%
13.7%
Material Categories:
31.6 1. Steel & Iron
4.77 2. H.S. Steel
62.8 3. Aluminum
3.45 4. Magnesium
0.422 5. Foam/Carpet
47.4 6. Rubber
2.77 7. Plastic
0.0 8. Glass
24.3 9. Other
100%
301.2 TOTAL
100%
177.5 TOTAL
Figure 4.6-3: Baseline and Total Mass Reduced Suspension System Material Content
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 570
4.7 Driveline System
The Driveline System is coupled to the engine/transmission assembly and is designed to
deliver the energy generated by the engine, passed through the transmission to the
wheels. Between the output shaft on the transmission and the rear wheels meeting the
road, there is plenty of metal properly designed to handle the torque which is delivered to
the wheels.
In 4-wheel drive mode the transmission provides energy to the transfer case. The output
shaft of the transfer case and the front axle differential are all connected with the same
type of universal/yoke/propshaft assembly as the rear axle. The front differential operates
in the same manner as the rear, when engaged.
As shown in Table 4.7-1, the Driveline System is made up of six subsystems. The
Silverado analysis and mass-reduction efforts are focused on the top four subsystems.
The last two subsystems have little mass in the total system mass of this vehicle and this
lack of mass does not provide any opportunities for mass-reduction.
The Silverado curb weight is 2,454 kg (5249 Ibs.) with a trailer towing capacity of 4,418
kg (9720 Ibs.), providing a gross vehicle weight of 6,804 kg (14969 Ibs). The Driveline
Subsystem has to properly support the vehicle's ability to safely and continuously move
this mass.
Table 4.7-1: Baseline Driveline System
^<
uj_
(D
3
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
07
Sub Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Driveline System
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Half Shaft Subsystem
4WD Driveline Control System
Total System Mass=
Total Vehicle Mass=
System Mass Contribution relative to Vehicle^
System &
Subsyste
m Mass
"kg"
14.312
89.067
52.526
27.619
0.000
0.294
183.818
2454
7.49%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 571
Materials for all components comprising the Silverado Driveline are represented in
Figure 4.1-1. In terms of mass proportion, Steel was the top material used.
Driveline System Material
Analysis
90.2%
0.0%
6.9%
0.0%
00::
20::
01 = :
0.0%
0.7%
Material Categories
165.843 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
12.763 3 A kj minim
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
3.746 6. Rubber
0.237 7. Plastic
0.000 8 Glass
1.229 9 Other
100::
183 818 TOTAL
Figure 4.7-1: Baseline Material Breakdown for Driveline System
Table 4.7-2 summarizes mass and cost savings by subsystem. The systems largest
savings were realized in the Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem. Significant mass
savings were also found in the Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem. Detailed system
analysis resulted in 20.4 kg saved at a cost decrease of $38.01, resulting in a $1.86 per kg
cost save.
Table 4.7-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Table for Driveline System
CO
•-=:
to
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 572
4.7.1 Driveshaft Subsystem
As seen in Table 4.7-3, the most significant contributor to the Driveshaft Subsystem
mass is the rearward propeller shafts. This sub-subsystem comprises 4.1% of the
subsystem mass.
Table 4.7-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Driveshaft Subsystem
CO
'-=:
05_
(D
3
05
05
05
Subsystem
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
05
Description
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rearward Propeller Shafts
Forward Propeller Shaft
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
7.514
6.798
14.312
183.818
2454
7.79%
0.58%
4.7.1.1 Chevrolet Silverado Driveline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado Driveshaft Subsystem is comprised of a front propshaft assembly with the
yokes, and a rear propshaft assembly with the yokes. The shafts are tube material and the
yokes are a forged material, in both steel and aluminum.
Image 4.7-1: Silverado Front Propshaft and Yoke
(Source: FEVPhoto)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 573
The front propshaft assembly is made of steel for both the shaft and the yokes. The rear
propshaft was an aluminum assembly with added metal for rotational strength to match
the same as the steel shaft properties.
Image 4.7-2: Silverado Rear Propshaft and Yoke
(Source: FEVPhoto)
4.7.1.2 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
The use of carbon fiber was initially considered. In performing research the mass save
was very near the aluminum mass and the cost was two to four times more expensive in
some cases. The technology is not yet ready for mass-production.
Carbon fiber is a safer type of material for the driveshaft. If it were to fracture and break
there would not be any penetration into the passenger compartment avoiding possible
catastrophic injuries.
It lacks impact resistance which could be a root cause of failure. Impact resistance is
considered a "have to have" in the propshaft material on a vehicle similar to the Silverado
full size pickup truck.
With the rear propshaft being aluminum it is a short walk to manufacture the front
propshaft from aluminum base material, adding aluminum volume to help increase
torsional, rotational strength. The only issue with making this a reality is finding a way
to maintain the packaging envelope of the front driveshaft. The use of aluminum requires
more aluminum to maintain the torsional strength; this may only be accomplished by
increasing the diameter. There are unique processes when it comes to manufacturing
with different materials than historically used. The rear driveshaft has taken the leap of
faith, it is thought the front will soon join it and be manufactured from aluminum or
another lightweight material.
4.7.1.3 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
During the brainstorming portion of our study of mass-reduction opportunities within the
Chevrolet Silverado there were many areas analyzed and alternative materials became the
focus to achieve mass-reduction. The ideas we identified were only thought starters
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 574
which required further research and analysis to determine if they were viable mass
production products which could be delivered by the 2025 new vehicle model year.
Table 4.7-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Driveline
Subsystem
Component / Assembly
Front Propshaft Assembly
Mass- Reduction Idea
Change material from Steel to Aluminum
Estimated Impact
50% Mass-Reduction
Risks & Trade Offs and / or Benefits
14% Cost Reduction
Silusrado has an Aluminum Rear Propshaft
Minimal Risk
4.7.1.4
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.7-5 lists the mass reduction ideas applied to Driveshaft Subsystem.
Table 4.7-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Driveshaft Subsystem
C/3
Cf)
3
05
05
Cfl
o-
(n
a
OJ
3
01
01
en
cr
C/3
cr
n
en
CD
3
00
05
System Sub-System Description
Drivshaft
Forward Propshaft Assembly
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detailed Evaluation
Change material form Steel (basetto Aluminum (new)
Table 4.7-6: Mass reduction and Cost Impact for Driveshaft Subsystem
(D
3
05
05
05
CO
1
I
01
.........
01
GO
&
CO
c
cr
1
00
.........
05
DeseripSon
Driveshaft
Rearward Propeller Shaft
Forward Propeller Shaft
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reducaon
'Kg' (i)
0.00
2.10
2.10
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
Tp>
$0.00
$3.38
$3.38
(Decrease)
Average
C:r/
KJogram
S/kg
-
$1.61
$1.61
(Decrease)
Suteys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
•%"
-
30.92%
14.69%
Vehicle
Mass
Reducaon
'%•
0.00%
0.09%
0.09%
|1( "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "V = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 575
4.7.2 Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
4.7.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table 4.7-7, the most significant contributor to the Rear Drive Housed Axle
Subsystem is the Beam Rear Axle Assembly, comprising 66.6% of the Rear Drive
Housed Axle Subsystem.
Table 4.7-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
(f>
'^1
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 576
are that chrome-moly steel is significantly more resistant to bending or breaking, but is
very difficult to weld with tools normally found outside a professional welding shop.
4.7.2.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.7-8 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Rear Drive Housed Axle
Subsystem.
Table 4.7-8: Mass Reduction Ideas Considered for the Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Component / Assembly
Rear Axle Housing
Rear Axle Housing Differential
Case Cover
Rear Axle Shaft
Rear Wheel Hub
Rear Axle Differential
Rear Axle Differential
Rear Axle Differential
Mass- Reduction Idea
Varilite® Manufacturing Process
(US Manufacturing. Corporation)
Change material from Steel to
Aluminum
Varilite® Manufacturing Process
(US Manufacturing, Corporation)
Remove Mass on Wheel Hub
Schaeffler Group
Lightweight Replacement
Material Removal through Design
Change
Compliments Schaeffler
Welded Ring Gear Assembly
(reduces mass of rinq gear and
Estimated Impact
20% Mass-Reduction
50% Mass-Reduction
20% Mass-Reduction
5% Mass-Reduction
30% Mass-Reduction
25% Mass-Reduction
13% Mass-Reduction
Risks & Trade Offs and / or Benefits
12% Cost Reduction
Currently used on Ford F-Series
Minimal Cost Reduction
Minimal Risk
12% Cost Reduction
Currently used on Ford F-Series
Minimal Risk
Technology still in vehicle testing
Technology should be available before 2025
Minimal Risk
Minimal Risk
Currently available on the marketplace
4.7.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.7-9 lists mass reduction ideas applied Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem.
Table 4.7-9: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
CO
tfj-
(D
3
05
05
05
£=
O"
(0
(A
(D
d
02
02
02
C/}
C
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 577
The Silverado Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem provided many opportunities for
mass-reduction. This Subsystem is divided into two sub subsystems, the first one being
the Beam Rear Axle Assembly, the other the Rear Drive Unit.
The Beam Rear Axle Assembly provided an opportunity to strategically thin the walls of
the axle tubing without losing any structural integrity. This is achieved through a
proprietary extrusion process used to manufacture the tube sleeves. This process is
known as the Vari-lite® tube process and U.S. Manufacturing Corporation is the owner of
the process. The process is an extrusion process which begins with steel tube stock and
through a series of different machining process creates a unique profile inside of the tube.
This extrusion process maintains the same structural properties as the parent tube
material, yet reduces the mass by -20% per axle housing. US Manufacturing axle tube
assmblies are in production on Ford and Dodge pickup trucks today.
Thicker Wall
(Axle Garner
Interface)
Thinner Wall
Friction Welding
Near Net Shape
Spindle
Conventional Tube with Constant Wall Thickness
USM Lightweight Tube with Variable Wall Thickness
29.3 kg
23.5 kg
Image 4.7-3: Near Net Shape Vari-Lite® Tube - Axle Housing
(Source: U.S. Manufacturing)
The same conceptual process is used for the extrusion of the axle shafts. These
components yield a little more mass savings, around 25% per axle assembly. These are
produced by the same manufacturer as the rear axle housing tubing. Coupled with the
axle shaft, the wheel hub was also mass-reduced by drilling six additional holes in the
forging. Hollow axle shafts, produced using the US Manufacturing process, are also in
production on Ford pickup trucks as well as a GM sport utility vehicle.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 578
| Two-Piece Welded Construction |
Forged Flange
USM
Near Net Shape
Figure 4.7-2: Near Net Shape Vari-Lite® Tube - Axle Shaft
(Source: U.S. Manufacturing)
Another opportunity was to change the rear axle differential housing cover from sheet
steel to sheet aluminum. This provided an additional 1.101 kg mass reduction.
Through some research an opportunity presented itself in the form of a new configuration
of the differential as we currently know it. The Schaeffler Group, Troy, Michigan, has
developed a new lightweight concept for the transfer of energy from the propshaft to the
axle shafts. The traditional cast differential housing has gone home to rest and a newly
engineered product delivered by The Schaeffler Group. The differential casting has been
redesigned as a stamped housing and two identical halves are riveted together. The Ring
Gear is then bolted onto the mounting flanges featured on the stamped housing. This
change also allowed for mass reduction of the ring gear due to different design. The
surface of the old bolt flange is reduced in mass with this design along with fewer
mounting bolts (6 versus 10).
Image 4.7-4: Base Silverado (left) / Schaeffler Group (right) Differentials
(Sources: Left - FEV, Inc.; Right - Courtesy of the Schaeffler Group)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 579
Another opportunity which is presented with the Schaeffler Group redesign is packaging
space. It was first developed for cramped space conditions on FWD vehicles. The design
is very compact and is currently on test for RWD applications.
4.7.3 Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Table 4.7-10: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
(n
•-=:
2.
a
3
05
05
05
05
05
05
Subsystem
03
03
03
03
03
03
Sub Subsystem
04
04
04
04
04
04
Description
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Differential Ring Gear
Front Differential
Front Differential Mounting Bracket LH
Front Differential Mounting Bracket RH
Front Differential Output Shaft
Net Value of Mass-Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1}
1.22
1.25
1.81
1.33
0.876
6.5
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
T' (2)
$5.50
-$0.02
$2.71
$1.83
-$3.76
$6.26
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$4.52
-$0.02
$1.49
$1.38
-$4.29
$0.97
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
2.32%
2.38%
3.45%
2.53%
1.67%
12.35%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.05%
0.05%
0.07%
0.05%
0.04%
0.26%
(1) "+" = Mass Decrease, "-" = Mass Increase
(2)"+" = Cost Decrease, "-" = Cost Increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 580
4.7.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.7-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
to
^<
ttl
(D
3
05
05
Subsystem
03
03
Sub-Subsystem
00
04
Description
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Unit
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
52.526
52.526
183.818
2454
28.57%
2.14%
4.7.3.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem is common to this type of front drive
truck system.
4.7.3.3 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.7-12 lists the mass reduction ideas considered for the Front Drive Housed Axle
Subsystem.
Table 4.7-12: Mass Reduction Ideas Considered for the Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Component / Assembly
Front Axle Differential
Front Axle Differential
Front Axle Differential
Mass- Reduction Idea
Schaeffler Group
Lightweight Replacement
Material Removal through Design
Change
Compliments Schaeffler
Lightweight Differential
Welded Ring Gear Assembly
(reduces mass of ring gear and bolts)
Estimated Impact
30% Mass-Reduction
25% Mass-Reduction
13% Mass-Reduction
Risks & Trade Offs and / or Benefits
Technology still in vehicle testing
Technology should be available before 2025
Original modification was on a FWD Differential
Minimal Risk
Minimal Risk
Currently available on the marketplace
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 581
4.7.3.4
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.7-13: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
GO
tf)
(D
3
05
n^
cr
in
(fl
0
3
00
m
GO
c
GO
tn
•-=:
(D
00
04
System Sub-System Description
Drive line System
Front Drive Housed Axle
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detailed Evaluation
differential assembly (new), replacing the cast iron and
steel (base).
To compliment the differential change, the ring gear can
also be downsized due to application-
Change the front differential housing support brackets
from Forged steel (base) to Forged Alurninum(new).
shaft (new) and then strategically thin the tube walls
mew;
The Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem offered a fair amount of mass-reduction
opportunities. The axle housing itself had already taken some strides to mass-reduction.
The entire axle casing and differential housing were made of die cast aluminum.
Similar to the rear axle drive unit, the front axle differential offered a 1.93 kg mass
reduction through taking advantage of the Schaeffler Group's redesigned differential
assembly. The new design streamlines the profile of the differential, reduces the overall
mass, and packages in a smaller area.
lightweight differential
Image 4.7-5: Base Silverado Front Differential (Left); Light-Weight Differential (Right)
(Source:Left - FEV, Inc.; Right - Provided by Schaeffler Group)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 582
This change also allows for the ring gear to be slightly lightened, just as the rear
differential. The ring rear mass reduction is less than the rear differential mass-reduction
due to the slightly lighter requirements off the entire differential.
Additional mass-reduction was provided in the differential mounting brackets. The
change of material from forged steel to forged aluminum yielded a combined mass saving
of 3.14 kg.
Image 4.7-6: LH and RH Front Differential Mounting Brackets
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The Front Differential Carrier output shaft is an opportunity for mass-reduction. It is a
solid steel shaft which couples the differential to the axle shaft and onward to the wheels.
The opportunity with this shaft is the same as the axle shafts previously discussed. The
mass-reduction technology employed is the strategic thinning of the shaft walls using the
manufacturing example provided by U. S. Manufacturing, located in Warren, Michigan.
This process change and mass-reduction yields a 1.12 kg mass-reduction.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 583
Table 4.7-14: Mass Reduction and Cost for Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
CO
•-<
Ui
(0
3
05
05
_
05
05
05
Subsystem
03
03
03"
03
03
03
Sub Subsystem
04
04
"04"
04
04
04
Description
Front Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Differential Ring Gear
Front Differential
Front Differential Mounting Bracket LH
Front Differential Mounting Bracket RH
Front Differential Output Shaft
Net Value of Mass-Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
1.22
l"25
181
1.33
0.876
6.5
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$5.50
-$b"02
$2.71
$1.83
-$3.76
$6.26
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$4.52
-$0.02
$1.49
$1.38
-$4.29
$0.97
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
2.32%
2.38%
3.45%
2.53%
1.67%
12.35%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
0.05%
0.05%
0.07%
0.05%
0.04%
0.26%
(1) "-«-" = Mass Decrease, "-" = Mass Increase
(2) "+" = Cost Decrease, "-" = Cost Increase
4.7.4 Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem
4.7.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.7-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Front Drive Half-Shafts Subsystem
en
^<
J2.
5T
3
05
05
Subsystem
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
Description
Front Drive Ha If- Shafts Subsystem
Front Half Shaft
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-subsystem
Mass
"kg"
27.619
27.619
183.818
2454
15.03%
1.13%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 584
4.7.4.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The drive to the two axles and may also have included reduction gears, a dog clutch or
differential. At least two drive shafts were used, one from the transfer case to each axle.
In some larger vehicles, the transfer box was centrally mounted and was itself driven by a
short drive shaft.
4.7.4.3
Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.7-16: Mass Reduction Ideas Considered for the Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem
Component / Assembly
Front Differential
Output Shaft
Front Half-Shafts
Front Differential
Mounting Brackets
Front Wheel Hub
Mass- Reduction Idea
Varilite® Manufacturing Process
(US Manufacturing. Corporation)
Varilite® Manufacturing Process
(US Manufacturing. Corporation)
Change from Forged Steel
to Forged Aluminum
Remove Mass on Wheel Hub
Estimated Impact
20% Mass-Reduction
20% Mass-Reduction
50% Mass-Reduction
5% Mass-Reduction
Risks & Trade Offs and / or Benefits
Minimal Risk
12% Cost Reduction
Currently used on Ford F-Series
Minimal Risk
Minimal Risk
Table 4.7-17: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem
CO
tf)
3
05
05
(/)
c
cr
£0
"a
•-•
04
04
CO
^-
co
w
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 585
The front axle half-shafts are very simple yet complex pieces of the driveline puzzle.
They are simple straight shafts of solid steel in the Chevrolet Silverado, and splined at
both ends. They are complex in how they interface with their mating puzzle pieces. They
mate with a constant velocity assembly on the wheel end, and a unique variable pitch
type joint on the differential end. Image 4.7-8 is the entire half-shaft assembly on the
Silverado. The wheel end is on the right hand side of the picture.
The attachment point to the differential output shaft is on the left hand side of the image.
This bolts directly to the front differential output shaft. There are three precision roller
bearings which maintain constant engagement with the hub. The precision roller bearings
allow for continuous movement of the shaft and allows it to comply to the various angles
the independent suspension part of the assembly can present.
The attachment point on the wheel end is much different and complex with tightly
toleranced components. As you can see there are six precision ground balls which are
captured in the bearing type assembly and retained by the cage like piece. This assembly
provides the wheel end with the same type of flexibility provided on the differential
output joint. The goal of the assembly is to maintain constant velocity of the axle to the
wheel hub, maintaining proper vehicle performance.
The strategic thinning of the tube walls using the U.S. Manufacturing Corporation
extrusion process allows for a mass-reduction of 1.12 kg.
Image 4.7-8: Vari-Lite® Tube - Axle Half-Shaft
(Source: U.S. Manufacturing)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 586
Table 4.7-18: Driveline System Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact
w
•-=:
(D
3
'05
05
06
Subsystem
"64"
04
04
«
c
b Subsyste
3
...........
01
01
Description
Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem
Front Half-Shafts
Front Axle Wheel Hub
Net Value of Mass-Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
1.12
0.232
1.4
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
"$" (2)
$3.11
-$0.54
$2.57
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$2.77
-$2.33
$1.90
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs '
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
4.07%
0.84%
4.91%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
0.05%
0.01%
0.06%
(1} "*" = Mass Decrease, "-" = Mass Increase
(2) "+" = Cost Decrease, "-" = Cost Increase
4.7.5 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
This report identifies mass reduction alternatives and cost implications for the Driveline
System with the intent to meet the function and performance requirements of the baseline
vehicle (2011 Chevrolet Silverado).
The Driveline Subsystem contributed a system mass reduction of 20.5 kg. This mass
reduction provided a vehicle cost save of $38.01, which equates to $1.86 per kg. The
overall vehicle mass reduction contribution is 0.83%. Table 4.7-19 is a summary of the
calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each vehicle subsystem evaluated. There
are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 587
Table 4.7-19: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact Summary
CO
'-=:
(D
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
CO
CT
W)
^<:
2.
00
01
02
03
04
05
07
Cfl
c
o-
£0
s=
tr
U)
•-=:
(?
3
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Driveline System
Driveshaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Housed Axle Subsystem
Front Drive Housed Axle SLI ;syste^
Front Drive Half-Shaft Subsystem
Rear Drive Haft Shaft Subsystem
4WD Driveline Control System
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (-:
2.10
10.5
6.49
1.36
b.bb
0.00
20.4
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" w
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"m
2.10
10.5
6.49
1.36
b.bb
0.00
20.4
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$3.38
$25.78
$6.27
$2.58
$0.00
$0.00
$38.01
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$3.38
$25.78
$6.27
$2.58
$0.00
$0.00
$38.01
(Decrease)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$1.61
$2.46
$0.97
$1.90
$0.00
$0.00
$1.86
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.09%
0.43%
0.26%
0.06%
0.00%
0.00%
0.83%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.7.6 Driveline System Material Analysis
Figure 4.7-3 provides the material distribution mass reduction savings generated from
the base vehicle to the mass reduction model, resulting in 20.417 kg mass reduction for
the entire subsytem. "Steel & Iron" decreased from 165.8 kg to 143.4 kg. "Aluminum"
was decreased a kg. "Rubber," meanwhile, increased from 3.75 kg to 7.07 kg.
-------
Baseline Driveline System
Driveline System Material
Analysis
01*
90.2%
00=:
69=:
0.0%
00::
2.0%
0.1=-:
00::
07=:
165.843
0.000
12.763
0.000
0.000
3.746
0237
0.000
1.229
1 Steel & Iron
2.H.S. Steel
3 Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6 Rubber
7 Plastic
8 Glass
9 Other
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 588
Total Mass Reduced Drivline System
Driveline System Material
Analysis
ategories
877=:
OF:
72::
0.0%
OF:
0 1::
0.0%
06::
143.366
0.000
11.760
0.000
0.000
7.073
0 237
0.000
0.965
1 Steel & Iron
2 H S Steel
3 Aluminum
4. r.bgnesium
5. Foam Carpet
6. Rubber
7 Plastic
8 Glass
9. Other
100=: 183.818 TOTAL 100% 163.401 TOTAL
Figure 4.7-3: Baseline and Total Mass Reduced Drivline System Material Content
4.8 Brake System
As shown in Table 4.8-1, the Brake System is composed of six subsystems: Front
Rotor/Drum and Shield; Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield; Parking Brake and Actuation;
Brake Actuation; Power Brake; and Brake Controls Subsystems. In comparing the six
subsystems, the greatest mass, 43 kg, is located in the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem which accounts for approximately 42.6% of the entire Brake System.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 589
Table 4.8-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Brake System
CO
t
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 590
cost group due to the significant weight savings that were calculated to be 43.9 kg with a
$167.87 overall cost increase.
Table 4.8-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Brake System
09
1
06
06
06
06
06
1'6
Subsystem
00
03
04
05
06
07
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
"bo"
Description
Brake System
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Setec
6
D
X
B
x
D
Mass
ReducSan
•Wffl
22.0
i'el'
1.45
2.53
1.58
43.9
(Decrease)
Cos: \™£3~
T»
-$56.20
-$7T02
-$15.56
-$0.46
-$24.64
-$167.87
(Increase)
Average
Co*
Ktogram
S/kg
-$2.55
-$4.35
-$10.72
-$0.18
-$15.57
-$3.83
(Increase)
Sysiem/
Subsys.
Mass
ReducSon
•%'
21.8%
16.1%
1.44%
2.50%
1.57%
43.4%
Vehcte Mass
Reducion
•%'
0.90%
0.66%
0.06%
0.10%
0.06%
1.79%
(1} "-»-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "-«-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.8.1 Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
4.8.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Figure 4.8-2 represents the major brake components in the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem and their relative location and position relevant to one another as located on
the vehicle front corner.
-------
Wheel
stud
Brake disc
or rotor
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 591
Inspection hole for
checking pad thickness
Caliper
Ventilating slots
Figure 4.8-2: Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
(Source: http://www. motor era. com/dictionary/di. htm)
As seen in Image 4.8-1, the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem consists of the
major components of the front rotor, front splash shield, front caliper assembly, front
caliper mounting, and miscellaneous anchor and attaching components.
Image 4.8-1: Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 592
Table 4.8-3 indicates the two sub-sub systems that make-up the Front Rotor/Drum and
Shield Subsystem. These are the Front Rotor and Shield Sub-subsystem and the Anchor
and Attaching Components Sub-subsystem. The most significant contributor to the mass
within this subsystem was found to be within the Front Rotor and Shield Sub-subsystem
(approximately 56.5%).
Table 4.8-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Front Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem
C/3
'-e
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 593
Image 4.8-2: Front Brake System Current Assembly Example
(Source: http://www. imakenews. com/titusw ill/ord)
4.8.1.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The disc brake system has been used in the automotive industry since the early 1900s.
The disc brake system's primary parts are the rotor assembly and the caliper assembly.
Standard automotive brake rotors also known as single piece rotors are sand casted from
iron. The disc brake system, compared to the drum brake system, has better stopping
performance, cools faster and is less susceptible to water immersion.
Until recently, there have been relatively little advancements made to the disc brake
system. Over the years, engineers have made small changes that have helped with cooling
and braking performance, but now companies are looking for new ways to lighten the
vehicle and further protect the environment.
A recent advancement to the disc brake system is the introduction of the two-piece rotor.
This new rotor design is made up of a rotor disc and a center hat or carrier. The hat is
fastened to the disc using T-nuts or "floating buttons." The disc can be made of cast iron,
but now engineers are looking to composites for greater weight savings and longer lasting
disc life. The hat is usually made out of aluminum allowing for better cooling due to
aluminums higher rate of heat dissipation and is lighter in weight. Because of the two-
piece design, the disc is allowed to expand and contract without stressing the hat. This
helps prevent the disc from warping or cracking.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 594
Another new braking technology belongs to Siemens VDO and is called the Electronic
Wedge Brake (EWB). This 12-volt electrically controlled braking system eliminates the
need for hydraulics in the vehicle. The system is based on a wedge-shaped plate
connected to a pair of electric motors that press the brake pads against the rotor. When
the operator depresses the brake pedal, a signal is sent to the brake motor to activate the
wedge plate. Within the braking system, an intelligent module and several sensors are
used to monitor movement and force thus eliminating the need for the ABS system.
4.8.1.3.1 Rotors
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front rotor (Image 4.8-3) is a single-piece, vented
design cast from grey iron and has a mass of 11.7 kg. Many high performance and luxury
vehicle models have begun utilizing alternate rotor designs in order to improve both
performance and economy. Two-piece rotor assemblies are now found in many
Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Porsche, and Chevrolet Corvettes across multiple platforms and
models. This two-piece configuration was also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus
Report. Besides OEM's, there are aftermarket suppliers that use this design. Brembo and
Wilwood are two such companies that have used this rotor design in various production
applications. This two-piece design usually utilizes an aluminum center hub (or "hat")
along with a disc braking surface (typically cast iron or steel).
Image 4.8-3: Front Rotor Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The rotor center (hat) can be made from several material choices including aluminum,
titanium, magnesium, grey iron or steel and manufactured from cast forms or billet
machined from solid.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 595
The rotor disc surfaces are also able to be made from various materials and processing
methods. These include aluminum metal matrix composites (Al/MMC), metal matrix
composites, titanium, and iron. Even carbon/ceramic matrices have been used to produce
rotors of less mass. Processing includes casting vented or solid disc plates and the
machining cross-drilled plates, slotted plates and scalloped disc diameters (both ID and
OD) profiles.
Some racing cars and airplanes use brakes with carbon fiber discs and carbon fiber pads
to reduce weight. For these systems, wear rates tend to be high, and braking may be poor
or "grabby" until the brake is heated to the proper operating temperature. Again, this
technology adds substantial costs if considered for regular high-volume automotive
production capacities.
4.8.1.3.2 Splash Shields
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front splash shield is a single-piece, non-vented
design, stamped of common steel and has a mass of 0.478 kg. A majority of splash
shields (or dust shields) (Image 4.8-4) are made from stamped, light-gage steel. Some are
vented or slotted for reduced material usage and increased weight savings. Alternative
materials are now beginning to be examined for use to further reduce weight contribution.
These include aluminum, high-strength steels, and even various reinforced plastics.
Image 4.8-4: Front Splash Shield Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 596
4.8.1.3.3
Caliper Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front caliper assembly is a multi-piece assembly
with the major components being made from cast iron and has a mass of 8.76 kg.
Traditionally caliper assemblies (Image 4.8-5) are comprised of several components.
These include: housing, mounting, mounting attachment bolts (2), inboard brake pad and
shim plate, outboard brake pad and shim plate, pistons (2), piston seal ring (2), piston seal
boots (2), mounting slide pins (2), mounting slide pin boots (2), housing bleeder valve,
and housing bleeder valve cap.
Image 4.8-5: Front Caliper Current Assembly
(Source: http://cdnO.autopartsnetwork.com/images/catalog/brand/centric/640/14144280.jpg)
4.8.1.3.3.1 Housings
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front caliper housing is a single piece cast iron
design and has a mass of 4.80 kg. Traditionally caliper housings (Image 4.8-6) have been
made from various grades of cast iron. This allowed for adequate strength while also
acting as a heat sink to assist in the brake cooling function. Now with advances in
materials and processing methods, other choices are available and being utilized in
aftermarket and high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle markets. Among
some of these alternate mediums are aluminum, titanium, steel, magnesium, and MMC.
Forming methods now include sand cast, semi-permanent metal molding, die-casting, and
machining from billet.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 597
Image 4.8-6: Front Caliper Housing Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
While these alternatives now are designed with the strength and performance required,
they do add a significant cost-versus-mass increase. However the weight savings
achieved is quite substantial and assists with reducing vehicle requirements for
suspension loads, handling, ride quality, engine horsepower requirements, etc. Other
advanced development includes using bulk molding compound using long randomly
oriented carbon fiber continues to be of interest due to the ability to easily mold it into
complex shapes. However, temperature extremes encountered by brake components and
the current cost of the material will be serious challenges for some time to come.
4.8.1.3.3.2 Mountings
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front caliper mounting (or bracket) is a single-
piece cast iron design and has a mass of 2.18 kg. Caliper mountings (Image 4.8-7) have
normally been made from various grades of cast iron for adequate strength and function.
Now with advances in materials and processing methods other choices are available and
being utilized in aftermarket and high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle
markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are aluminum, titanium, steel, and
magnesium. Forming and fabrication methods include casting and billet machining.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 598
Image 4.8-7: Front Caliper Mounting Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.1.3.3.3 Pistons
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front caliper pistons are a double piece phenolic
glass-filled design with an aluminum band located at the piston opening and have a mass
of 0.417 kg. Caliper pistons (Image 4.8-8) commonly are made from various alloys of
steel for function and heat resistance. Now advances alternative materials and processing
methods allow new choices to be available. Rather than metallics only (aluminum, steel,
titanium) being utilized there are Phenolic glass-filled plastics that are used by OEMs in
high volume. These are molded to near-net shape with minimal machining required,
saving both material and processing time while saving significant mass.
Image 4.8-8: Front Caliper Piston Current Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.1.3.3.4 Brake Pads
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado front caliper brake pads are of standard
construction. They have a mass of 1.12 kg. The brake pads (Image 4.8-9) has had little
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 599
change in design, materials or processing in recent years. Most have steel backing plates
with a molded friction material attached to them. Various size braking surfaces and
molded shapes are the common variations across different vehicle platforms. Most
material differences are focused only in the friction material going from traditional
asbestos now to semi-metallic and full metallics as well as various ceramic compounds.
While these friction materials greatly affect performance and vehicle stopping distances
under various conditions, little is accomplished in saving mass and reducing material
weight.
Image 4.8-9: Front Caliper Brake Pad Current Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.1.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.8-4 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from the brainstorming activity
for the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem and their various components. These
ideas include part modifications, material substitutions, processing and fabrication
differences, and use of alternative parts currently in production and used on other
vehicles and applications.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 600
Table 4.8-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered - Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rotor
Vent (slot) front rotors (1)
Cross-Drill front rotors (2)
Two piece Rotor - Aluminum center (hat) with
Iron/Steel/CF outer surface (disc) w/ T-nut
fasteners (3)
Change Material for Rotors - AI/MMC (4)
Downsizing based on Rotor fins added to hat
(5)
Clearance drill holes in rotor top hat surface to
reduce wt (6)
Drill holes in rotor hat perimeter (7)
Chg from straight to directional vanes btwn
rotor disc surfaces (5%) (8)
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(9)
Change Material for Rotors - Carbon Ceramic
(110)
Combine idea's 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 8
Combine idea's 1 , 2 & 6
Combine idea's 1, 2, 3 & 6
Combine idea's 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6
Combine idea's 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 110
~ 1 % wt save
~3% wt save
-50% wt save
-50% wt save
-5% wt save
-5% wt save
-3% wt save
-5% wt save
-5% wt save
-60% wt save
-50% wt save
-5% wt save
-20% wt save
-60% wt save
-50% wt save
Low Risk - 5% cost increase
Low Risk - 5% cost increase
In production - 30% cost
increase
In production - 2.5x cost
increase
Low Risk - 5% cost save
Low Risk - 5% cost increase
Low Risk - 5% cost increase
Low Risk - 5% cost save
Low Risk - 5% cost save
In production - 4x cost
increase
~4x cost increase
-15% cost increase
~2x cost increase
-35% cost increase
-15% cost increase
Splash Shield
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(10)
Make splash shield out of plastic (1 1 )
Make splash shield out of HSS (12)
Make splash shield out of Aluminum (13)
Make splash shield out of Titanium (14)
Add vent slots (.25"W x 2"L) (15)
Combine 10, 11 & 15
-20% wt save
-40% wt save
-10% wt save
-50% wt save
-30% wt save
-5% wt save
-50% wt save
Low Risk - 20% cost save
~2.5x cost increase
Low Risk - 3x cost increase
~2x cost increase
~6.5x cost increase
Low Risk - 5% cost increase
-60% cost increase
Brake Pads
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(16)
Make brake pad wear material thinner (17)
Replace pad material w/ ceramic (109)
Combine 16, 17 & 109
-10% wt save
-5% wt save
-10% wt save
-25% wt save
In Production - -10% cost
save
Low Production -5% cost
save
In Production - -10% cost
save
-25% cost save
Table 4.8-4 continued next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 601
Table 4.8-4 continued
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Calipers
Make caliper housing out of cast magnesium
(18)
Make caliper housing out of cast aluminum
(19)
Make caliper housing out of forged aluminum
(20)
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(21)
Combine 18 & 21
-60% wt save
-50% wt save
-50% wt save
-15% wt save
-65% wt save
In Production - -35% cost
increase
In Production - -25% cost
increase
In Production - -30% cost
increase
In Production - -10% cost
save
Low Risk - Cost Neutral
Caliper Mounting Bracket
Make caliper bracket out of titanium (22)
Make caliper bracket out of cast magnesium
(23)
Make caliper bracket out of cast aluminum
(24)
Make caliper bracket out of forged aluminum
(25)
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(26)
Combine 23 & 26
-35% wt save
-40% wt save
-50% wt save
-50% wt save
-20% wt save
-60% wt save
In Production - ~5.5x cost
increase
In Production - -35% cost
increase
In Production - -30% cost
increase
In Production - -35% cost
increase
In Production - -20% cost
save
-15% cost increase
4.8.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.8-5 shows the mass reduction ideas for the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem that were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved
and the cost to manufacture them. Several ideas suggest plastics and magnesium as
alternate materials. Also, included are part substitutions from other vehicle designs such
as the Ford F150, 2006 Dodge RAM, and the 2002 Chevrolet Avalanche.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 602
Table 4.8-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Detailed Front Rotor / Drum and Shield
Subsystem Analysis
tn
^<
tfi
(D
3
06
06
06
06
06
Subsystem
03
03
03
03
03
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rotor
Front Splash Shields
Caliper Housing
Caliper Pi/lounting Bracket
Pulass-Reduction Ideas selected for Detail
Evaluation
Downsize based on 2006 Dodge RAM
Two Piece Rotor -Aluminum center (hat)
Change disc material to AI/MMC
Change vanes from straight to directional
Cross-drill disc surface
Downsize based on 2007 Ford F150
Make splash shield out of plastic
Add vent slots
Downsize based on 2002 Chevy Avalanche
Make out of cast magnesium
Downsize based on 2012 Dodge Durango
Make out of cast magnesium
4.8.1.5.1
Rotors
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the final front rotor assembly (Image
4.8-10) was the combination of multiple individual brainstorming ideas. These ideas
included the following modifications to component design, material utilized and
processing methods required:
• Two-piece Assembled Rotor Design, Image 4.8-10
o Hat Fastened to Rotor Disc w/ T-Nuts and Bolts
(Increased Process Time but Allows Better Hat Material Choices for
Mass Savings)
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevrolet, Mercedes, Audi,
BMW, Wilwood, Brembo
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 603
Image 4.8-10: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http.V/www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Aluminum Hat (Material Substitution), Image 4.8-11
o Diecast to Near-Net Shape
(Mass Savings even with increased material volume of 40-45%,
Decreased Processing Time, Rapid and Increased Heat Dissipation)
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevrolet, Mercedes, Audi,
BMW, Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
Image 4.8-11: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http.V/www.wilwood.com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Aluminum - Metal Matric Composite Disc (Material Substitution), Image
4.8-12
o Sand Cast to Near-Net Shape
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota,
Honda, Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini,
Lotus, Wilwood, Brembo, Motorcycles
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 604
Image 4.8-12: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.wilwood. com/Pdf/Catalogs/TechCatalog.pdj)
Cast Directional Cooling Fins Between Disc Surfaces, Image 4.8-13
o Casting Process Change. Enhanced Disc Cooling.
(Acts as Centrifuge Air Pump: Maximum Air Circulation for
Increased Cooling. This is Required Due to Less Rotor Material
Mass Available to Absorb Heat.)
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche,
Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood, Brembo
Image 4.8-13: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source:http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/tech/hppp_1101_brake_rotor_guide/photo_03.html)
Disc Surface Cross-Drilling (Image 4.8-14)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 605
o Improved Disc Cooling and Mass Savings
(Disperse Built-Up Heat and Gases)
o Manufacturers and OEMs include: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Cadillac,
Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Wilwood,
Brembo, Motorcycles
Image 4.8-14: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.pap-parts.com/products.asp?dept=2732)
Down-sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the 2006 Dodge RAM, Image
4.8-15
o Ratio Vehicle Net Mass and Rotor Size versus Prius Specs (Lotus) to
Reduce Rotor Size and Material Usage.
(Mass Savings Due to Less Material Usage)
Image 4.8-15: Front Rotor Size Normalization Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The final front rotor assembly (Image 4.8-16) is the approximate design configuration
based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned front rotor solution has a calculated
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 606
mass of 5.60 kg. Although nearly all of these individual mass reduction ideas have been
implemented by plenty of manufactures and OEMs individually, none have been utilized
all at once in a single vehicle application. Therefore, the appropriate amount of industry
testing and validation must be performed by any vehicle manufacturer in order to fit this
design to a particular vehicle application. Concerns to be addressed would include the
normal list of topics that are determined with any braking system. These would include
some of the following requirements:
• Cracking and Deformation Resistance
• Degassing, Glazing and Debris Control
• Brake Pad Wear
• Cooling (Heat Dissipation) Performance
• Disc Heat Capacity versus Warping
• Quality and Geometric Tolerance:
o Dimensioning, Surface Finish, Lateral Runout, Flatness,
Perpendicularity and Parallelism
• Rotor Braking Surface Wear
• Rotor Life and Durability versus Warranty
• Braking Performance versus Component Longevity
• NVH Testing versus Functional Performance
• Rotor Assembly (Disc and Hat) Balancing
Image 4.8-16: Front Rotor Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.girodisc. com/Girodisc-Front-2-piece-rotors-for-Mazda-RX8_p_6346. html)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 607
4.8.1.5.2 Splash Shields
The solution(s) chose to be implemented on the front splash shields (Image 4.8-17) was
the combination of two individual brainstorming ideas. This redesigned Chevrolet
Silverado Splash Shield solution has a calculated mass of 0.229 kg. These ideas included
the following modifications to design, materials and processing:
• Plastic Glass-Filled, Ribbed and Webbed Shield (Material Substitution)
o Injection Molded to Near-Net Shape and Combining Components
(Mass Savings even with increased material volume of 200%,
Component Simplification and Assembly Reduction)
• Down-sizing Based on the Scaling Utilizing the Ford F150
o Ratio Vehicle Net Mass and Rotor Size versus Ford F150
Image 4.8-17: Front Splash Shield Mass-Reduced Component Examples
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.1.5.3 Caliper Assembly
The redesigned Chevrolet Silverado front caliper assembly is still a multi-piece assembly
comprised of the same components and design function. The caliper housing is now
being made from cast magnesium and the assembly has a new reduced mass calculated to
be 3.70 kg. The front caliper assembly (Image 4.8-18 and Image 4.8-19) is still
comprised of the same components and design function. These include: housing,
mounting, mounting attachment bolts (2), inboard brake pad and shim plate, outboard
brake pad and shim plate, pistons (2), piston seal ring (2), piston seal boots (2), mounting
slide pins (2), mounting slide pin boots (2), housing bleeder valve, and housing bleeder
valve cap.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 608
Image 4.8-18: Front Caliper Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://www.speedhunters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/GI-BNR34-154.jpg?random=1405437392167)
Guide Pin
Caliper Body
Bleeder Screw
Pin Boot
Piston Boot
Shim
Boot Ring
Pad
Lock Pin
Bush
Piston Seal
' Piston
Support Bracket
Pad Clip
Wear Indicator
Image 4.8-19: Front Caliper Assembly Component Diagram Example
(Source: http://www.brakewarehouse. com/)
4.8.1.5.4 Housings
The front caliper housing (Image 4.8-20) has been mass reduced based on the 2002
Chevrolet Avalanche housing and the material has been changed from a cast iron design
to a diecast magnesium design. Additional material volume of 70-80% was added to
improve strength and increase mass surface to assist in the brake cooling function. This
technology is not widely available and to some light airplane applications.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 609
Image 4.8-20: Front Caliper Housing Mass Reduced Component example
(Source:http://www.peterverdone.com/wiki/index.php?title=PVD_Land_Speed_Record_Bike#Caliper)
While these alternatives are designed with the strength and performance required, they do
add a significant cost while providing a large mass decrease. However, the weight
savings achieved is quite substantial. This redesigned front caliper housing solution has a
calculated mass of 1.60 kg. This mass decrease assists with reducing vehicle
requirements for suspension loads, handling, ride quality, engine horsepower
requirements, etc.
4.8.1.5.4.1 Mountings
The front caliper mounting (Image 4.8-21) has been mass reduced based on the Dodge
Durango caliper bracket and the material was changed from cast iron to a die cast
Magnesium design. While additional material volume of 70-80% was added to improve
strength, the mass savings achieved was still significant. This redesigned front caliper
mounting solution has a calculated mass of 0.692 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 610
Image 4.8-21: Front Caliper Mounting Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.gforcebuggies. com/Parts)
The final front brake corner assembly (Image 4.8-22) is the approximate design
configuration based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned Chevrolet Silverado
front brake corner assembly solution has a calculated mass of 10.1 kg. Again, nearly all
of these individual mass reduction ideas have been implemented by many manufactures
and OEMs individually, but none have been utilized at once in a single vehicle
application. Therefore, the appropriate amount of industry testing and validation must be
performed by any vehicle manufacturer in order to fit this design to a particular vehicle
application.
Image 4.8-22: Front Brake System Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://www. sharkwerks. com/products.php?pid= 194)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 611
4.8.1.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.8-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass
savings of 22.0 kg and a cost increase differential of $47.00.
Table 4.8-6: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
CO
1
06
06
06
Subsystem
03
03
03
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
Descriptor
Front Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Front Rotor and Shield
Front Caliper, Anchor and Attaching Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
See::
D
A
C
Mass
Redixasn
•kg1,;--
12.61
9.39
22.00
(Decrease)
CcE:l~p3"
T<2>
456.20
$9.20
-$47.00
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kcgra-
S/kg
-$4.46
$0.98
-$2.14
(Increase)
Subsys/ Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reducfcn
•%'
29.3%
21.8%
51.2%
Vehicle Mass
ReducKn
•%•
0.51%
0.38%
0.90%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.8.2 Rear Rotor/ Drum and Shield Subsystem
4.8.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image 4.8-23 represents the major brake components in the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem and their relative location and position to one another as on the vehicle rear
corner.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 612
Image 4.8-23: Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem Relative Location Diagram
(Source: A2MAC1)
As seen in Image 4.8-24, the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem consists of the
following major components: rear drum, rear backing plate, wheel cylinder, guide plate,
and miscellaneous attaching components.
Image 4.8-24: Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem Current Major Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Table 4.8-7 indicates the two sub-subsystems that make-up the Rear Rotor/Drum and
Shield Subsystem. These are the Rear Drum Sub-subsystem and the Rear Drum Brake
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 613
and Attaching Components Sub-subsystem. The most significant contributor to the mass
within this subsystem was found to be within the Rear Drum Sub-subsystem
(approximately 64.5%).
Table 4.8-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Rear Rotor / Drum and Shield Subsystem
C/3
If!
(D
3
06
06
06
g>
—
tfi
tf>
(D
3
04
04
04
en
cr
CO
cr
tfi
S2-
(D
3
00
07
08
Description
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Drum
Rear Drum Brake and Attaching Components
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"
22 1
122
34.3
101.0
2454
33.9%
1.40%
4.8.2.2
Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
As with the Front Brake subsystems previously discussed, the Chevrolet Silverado Rear
Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem (Image 4.8-25) follows typical industry standards.
The drums (Image 4.8-26) are a single-piece design cast out of grey iron and
manufactured to SAE specifications. The backing plate assembly (Image 4.8-27) is
composed of several components. These include: the backing plate (Image 4.8-28),
which is a stamped steel construction; and the wheel cylinder assembly (Image 4.8-29),
also composed of several components. The guide plate (Image 4.8-30) is a stamped steel
component. The spacer block (Image 4.8-31) is stamped from a heavy thick steel plate.
The rivets (Image 4.8-32) are drawn from steel rod. The brake pads (Image 4.8-33) are
of standard construction with steel backing plates and friction pad materials. And, the
actuation lever (Image 4.8-34) is a stamped steel component. The current OEM
Chevrolet Silverado rear brake corner assembly has a mass of 17.1 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 614
Image 4.8-25: Rear Brake System Assembly Example
(Source: A2MAC1)
4.8.2.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The hydraulic drum brake system has been used in the automotive industry since the
1930's. The drum brake system's primary parts are the drum, backing plate, wheel
cylinder, and brake shoes. Standard automotive brake drums and wheel cylinders are
usually sand casted from iron. The backing plate is typically stamped from thick low
carbon steel. Over the years, the disc brake system has replaced the drum brake system
on the front wheels.
There have been relatively little advancements made to the drum brake system as far as
light weighting is concerned. The most popular changes have been not so much in design,
but in material. On a limited scale, the drum, wheel cylinder, and backing plate are now
made out of aluminum.
4.8.2.3.1 Drums
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado rear drum (Image 4.8-26) is a single piece design
cast out of grey iron and has a mass of 11.0 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 615
Image 4.8-26: Rear Drum Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
A drum brake system uses brake shoes with friction material attached to them. The shoes
are pushed, by the wheel cylinder, against the drum. This causes friction, which slows or
stops the vehicle.
Drum rotation causes the shoes to press against the drum with more force than with disc
brakes. However, since the shoes are enclosed and not exposed to air flow, it cannot
dissipate heat into the atmosphere as effectively as a disk brake system.
4.8.2.3.2 Backing Plate Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado rear backing plate assembly is a multi-piece
assembly with the major components being made of cast iron and stamped steel
construction and has a mass of 3.75 kg. Traditionally, backing plate assemblies (Image
4.8-27) are comprised of several components. These include: backing plate, guide plate,
guide plate spacer, rivets, wheel cylinder assembly, and mounting bolts.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 616
Image 4.8-27: Rear Backing Plate Assembly Current Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.2.3.2.1 Backing Plate
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado backing plate is a single piece stamped steel
design and has a mass of 2.89 kg. A majority of backing plates (or dust shields) (Image
4.8-28) are made from stamped, light gage steel. Some are vented or slotted for reduced
material usage and increased weight savings. Alternative materials are now beginning to
be examined for use to further reduce weight contribution. These include aluminum, high
strength steels, and even various reinforced plastics.
./
Image 4.8-28: Rear Backing Plate Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 617
While these alternatives now are designed with the strength and performance required
they do add a significant cost-versus-mass increase. However, the weight savings
achieved is quite substantial and assists with reducing such vehicle requirements for
suspension loads, handling, ride quality, and engine horsepower requirements. Other
advanced development includes using bulk molding compound using long randomly
oriented carbon fiber continues to be of interest due to the ability to easily mold it into
complex shapes. However, temperature extremes encountered by brake components and
the current cost of the material will be serious challenges for some time to come.
4.8.2.3.2.2 Wheel Cylinder Housing
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado rear wheel cylinder housing is a single piece cast
iron design and has a mass of 0.458 kg. Wheel cylinder housings (Image 4.8-29) have
normally been made from various grades of cast iron for adequate strength and function.
Now with advances in materials and processing methods other choices are available and
being utilized in aftermarket and high performance applications as well as OEM vehicle
markets. Among some of these alternate mediums are aluminum, titanium, steel, and
magnesium. Forming and fabrication methods include casting and billet machining.
Image 4.8-29: Rear Wheel Cylinder Housing Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.2.3.2.3 Guide Plate
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado rear guide plate is a single piece stamped steel
design and has a mass of 0.073 kg. The guide plate (Image 4.8-30) is made from
stamped, light gage steel. Alternative materials are now beginning to be examined for use
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 618
to further reduce weight contribution. These include aluminum, high-strength steels, and
even various reinforced plastics.
Image 4.8-30: Rear Guide Plate Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.2.3.2.4 Spacer Block
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado rear guide plate spacer block is a single piece
stamped steel design and has a mass of 0.099 kg. The spacer block (Image 4.8-31) is
made from stamped, heavy gage steel. Alternative materials are now beginning to be
examined for use to further reduce weight contribution. These include aluminum, high-
strength steels, and even various reinforced plastics.
Image 4.8-31: Rear Guide Plate Spacer Block Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 619
4.8.2.3.2.5 Guide Plate Rivet
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado rear guide plate rivet is a single piece drawn steel
design and has a mass of 0.034 kg. The rivets (Image 4.8-32) are made from forged
heavy gage steel. Alternative materials are now beginning to be examined for use to
further reduce weight contribution. These include aluminum, high-strength steels, and
even various reinforced plastics.
Image 4.8-32: Rear Guide Plate Rivet Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.2.3.3 Brake Pads
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado rear drum brake pads are of standard construction
with steel backing plates and friction pad materials. They have a mass of 1.58 kg. The
brake pads (Image 4.8-33) had had little change in design, materials or processing in
recent years. Most have steel backing plates with a molded friction material attached to
them. Various sized braking surfaces and molded shapes are common variations across
different vehicle platforms. Most material differences are focused only in the friction
material going from traditional asbestos now to semi-metallic and full metallic as well as
various ceramic compounds. While these friction materials greatly affect performance
and vehicle stopping distances under various conditions, little is accomplished in saving
mass and reducing material weight.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 620
Image 4.8-33: Rear Drum Brake Pad Current Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.2.3.4 Actuation Lever
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado parking brake actuation lever is a standard
construction of a stamped steel design with a mass of 0.303 kg. The actuation lever
(Image 4.8-34) has had little change in design, materials or processing in recent years.
Image 4.8-34: Actuation Lever Current Components
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 621
4.8.2.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.8-8 shows the mass reduction ideas considered from brainstorming activity for
the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem and its various components. These ideas
include part modifications, material substitutions, processing and fabrication differences,
and use of alternative parts currently in production and used on other vehicles and
applications.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 622
Table 4.8-8: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Rear Rotor / Drum
and Shield Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Drum
Vent (slot) rear drums (Circumference braking
surface) (27)
Cross-Drill rear drums (Circumference braking
surface) (28)
Change Material for Drum - AI/MMC (29)
Add fins around Drum OD to allow thinner
material while still dissipating/absorbing heat
(30)
Clearance drill holes in Drum top hat surface
to reduce wt (31)
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(32)
Combine 28 & 31
Combine 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 & 32
Combine 27, 28, 30 & 31
-1% wt save
~5% wt save
-60% wt save
-2% wt save
-2% wt save
0 wt save
-5% wt save
-60% wt save
-5% wt save
Low Risk - -5% cost
increase
Low Risk - -5% cost
increase
~2x cost increase
Low Risk - -2% cost save
Low Risk - -5% cost
increase
0 cost change
Low Risk - -5% cost save
~2x cost save
Low Risk - -5% cost
increase
Backing Plate
Vent Backing Plate with slots (33)
Make out of plastic (34)
Make out of High Strength Steel (35)
Make out of Aluminum (36)
Make out of Titanium (37)
Tailor Rolled Blank to reduce thickness (38)
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(39)
Combine 33 & 36
-1% wt save
-5% wt save
-5% wt save
-50% wt save
-30% wt save
-5% wt save
0 wt save
-50% wt save
Low Risk - -1% cost save
~2x cost increase
~2.5x cost increase
-80% cost increase
~7x cost increase
-5% cost increase
0 cost change
-70% cost increase
Guide Plate
Make Guide Plate out of stamped Aluminum
(40)
Stamp Guide Plate from Backing Plate Mtl -
Eliminates Guide Plate, Spacer & Rivets (46)
Single Layer Weld New Guide Plate to
Backing Plate to eliminate Spacer & Rivets
(45)
Redesign Guide Plate offset to eliminate
Spacer & Shorter Rivets (47)
-50% wt save
~2x wt save
-120% wt save
-150% wt save
-60% cost increase
~2x cost save
-40% cost save
~1.25x cost save
Guide Plate Spacer
Make Spacer out of Aluminum (41)
Make Spacer out of Plastic (43)
-50% wt save
-50% wt save
-60% cost increase
-70% cost increase
Guide Plate Rivets
Make Rivets out of Aluminum (42)
Mutli Layer Weld Guide Plate & Spacer to
Backing Plate to eliminate Rivets (44)
Combine 40, 41 & 42
Combine 40, 42 & 47
-40% wt save
~2x wt save
-50% wt save
-300% wt save
-40% cost increase
-100% cost save
-60% cost increase
-800% cost save
Table 4.8-8 continued next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 623
Table 4.8-8 (Cont'd)
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Brake Shoes
Actuation Lever
Wheel Cylinder
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(48)
Make brake shoe wear material thinner (49)
Make out of HSS (50)
Make out of Titanium (51)
Make out of Forged Aluminum (52)
Make Wheel Cylinder out of Forged Aluminum
(53)
0 wt save
~5% wt save
-2% wt save
-70% wt save
-50% wt save
-50% wt save
0 cost change
-5% cost save
~3x cost increase
~7x cost increase
-100% cost increase
-60% cost increase
4.8.2.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.8-9 shows the mass reduction ideas for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield
Subsystem that were selected for detailed evaluation of both the mass savings achieved
and the cost to manufacture. Several ideas suggest aluminum and aluminum metal matrix
as alternate materials.
Table 4.8-9: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Cfl
••<
lf>
(D
3
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Subsystem
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Drum
Backing Plate
Guide Plate
Guide Plate Spacer
Backing Plate Rivets
Wheel Cylinder Housing
Actuation Lever
Mass-Reduction Ideas selected for Detail
Evaluation
Change drum material to AI/MMC
Downsizing based on fins added to hat
Make out of cast aluminum
Stamp from backing plate material
Eliminate with backing material
Eliminate with backing material
Make out of forged aluminum
Make out of forged aluminum
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 624
4.8.2.5.1 Drums
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented on the final rear drum (Image 4.8-35) was the
combination of multiple individual brainstorming ideas. These ideas included the
following modifications to component design, material utilized and processing methods
required:
• Make out of aluminum metal matrix
o Die cast to near-net shape
(Mass savings even with increased material volume of 20-30%,
increased processing time, rapid and increased heat dissipation)
Image 4.8-35: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component
(Source: http://www.sae.org/mags/tbe/CHASS/9417)
Add Cooling Fins, Image 4.8-36
o Die cast to net shape
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 625
Image 4.8-36: Rear Rotor Mass Reduced Component (with Cooling Fins)
(Source: http://www.compositesworld.com/articles/metal-matrix-composites-used-to-lighten-military-brake-dmms)
The redesigned Chevrolet Silverado rear drum solution has a calculated mass of 4.20 kg.
Although nearly all of these individual mass reduction ideas have been implemented by
many manufactures and OEMs individually, none have been utilized all at once in a
single vehicle application. Therefore the appropriate amount of industry testing and
validation must be performed by any vehicle manufacturer in order to fit this design to a
particular vehicle application. Concerns to be addressed include the normal list of topics
determined with any braking system. These would include some of the following
requirements:
• Cracking and deformation resistance
• Degassing, glazing, and debris control
• Brake pad wear
• Cooling (heat dissipation) performance
• Drum heat capacity versus warping
• Quality and geometric tolerance:
o Dimensioning, surface finish, lateral runout, flatness,
perpendicularity, and parallelism
• Drum braking surface wear
• Drum life and durability versus warranty
• Braking performance versus component longevity
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 626
NVH testing versus functional performance
Drum balancing
4.8.2.5.2 Backing Plate
The solution chosen to be implemented on the rear backing plate (Image 4.8-37) was the
combination of three individual brainstorming ideas. This redesigned Chevrolet Silverado
rear backing plate solution has a calculated mass of 2.19 kg. These ideas included the
following design, materials and processing modifications:
• Cast aluminum fabrication (material substitution)
o One piece casting design combining components (mass savings even
with increased material volume of 120-130%, component
simplification and assembly reduction)
• Cast-in guide plate
o Eliminates guide plate, guide plate spacer, and guide plate rivets
Image 4.8-37: Casted Rear Backing Plate Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/2014/04/29/another-look-at-smokey-yunicks-capsule-car/)
4.8.2.5.3 Wheel Cylinder Housing
The redesigned Chevrolet Silverado wheel cylinder housing (Image 4.8-38) is now
forged out of aluminum and has a new reduced mass calculated to be 1.41 kg (Mass
savings even with increased material volume of 35-40%). This technology is available
and being utilized in aftermarket and high performance applications as well as a few
OEM vehicle markets. Some manufacturers and vehicle applications include the Citroen
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 627
Elysee 1.6 SX (2007), Dacia Lodgy 1.5 DCi Laureate (2013), Fiat Grande Punto 1.2
Dynamic (2006), Honda Civic 1.8 LX (2007), Lancia Ypsilon 0.9 Twin Air Platinum
(2012), Opel Corsa 1.3 CDTi Cosmo (2007), and Toyota Prius 1.5 Base (2008).
Image 4.8-38: Wheel Cylinder Housing Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: http://brakeperformance.com/wheel-cylinders/wheel-cylinders-rebuild-kit.php)
4.8.2.5.4 Actuation Lever
The actuation lever (Image 4.8-39) was changed from stamped steel to a stamped
aluminum design. While additional material volume of 45-55% was added to improve
strength, the mass savings achieved was still significant. This redesigned Chevrolet
Silverado actuation lever solution has a calculated mass of 0.168 kg.
Image 4.8-39: Actuation lever Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://www.mytransasia.com/en/products_show.asp?showid=254&product=4241.72)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 628
The final rear brake corner assembly (Image 4.8-40) is the approximate design
configuration based on the above combined ideas. This redesigned Chevrolet Silverado
rear brake corner assembly solution has a calculated mass of 8.97 kg. To reiterate, nearly
all of these individual mass reduction ideas have been implemented by plenty of
manufactures and OEMs individually, but none have been utilized all at once in a single
vehicle application. Therefore the appropriate amount of industry testing and validation
must be performed by any vehicle manufacturer in order to fit this design to a particular
vehicle application.
.
Image 4.8-40: Rear Brake System Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.2.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.8-10 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass
savings of 16.3 kg and a cost increase differential of $71.02.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 629
Table 4.8-10: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
C/J
I
"06"
06
06
Subsystem
04
04
04
Sub- Subsystem
00
07
08
Descriptor)
Rear Rotor/Drum and Shield Subsystem
Rear Drum
Rear Drum Brake and Attaching Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Setec
D
A
D
Mass
Reducdon
•KgT{D
13.7
2.62
16.31
(Decrease)
C:"l~p=~
T
-$77.34
$6.33
-$71.02
(Increase)
Average
Cost
K :gr=~
S/kg
45.65
$2.42
-$4.35
(Increase)
Subsys/ Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
ReducKn
'%'
40.0%
7.64%
47.6%
Vehicle Mass
Reducson
•%•
0.56%
0.11%
0.66%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "•<-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.8.3 Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
4.8.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image 4.8-41 represents the major parking brake components in the Parking Brake and
Actuation Subsystem, which includes: the parking brake pedal actuator sub-assembly and
the actuation cable assemblies with guides and brackets that are located on the vehicle
from the engine firewall (front of vehicle) all the way to the rear wheels.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 630
Image 4.8-41: Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem Current Sub-assemblies
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem (Table 4.8-11) consists of the parking brake
controls and the parking brake cables and attaching components. The most significant
contributor to mass is the parking brake cables and attaching components (approximately
58.1%) followed by the parking brake controls (approximately 41.9%).
Table 4.8-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
3
06
06
06
CO
•5
1
05
05
05
CO
o-
co
cr
«
0
a
3
00
01
02
Description
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Parking Brake Controls
Parking Brake Cables and Attaching Components
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"
1.97
2.73
4.70
101.0
2454
4.66%
0.19%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 631
4.8.3.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado Parking Brake Subsystem (Figure 4.8-3) follows typical
industry standards. The Silverado uses a cable-operated rear parking brake system. The
system consists of a foot operated lever which pulls on the parking brake cables causing
both of the rear brake shoes to engage the rear brake drums. The mass of this entire
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem is 4.70 kg.
Figure 4.8-3: Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem Layout and Configuration
(Source: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Silverado+front+disc+Brake+system&id)
4.8.3.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Alternatives to cable-operated parking brake systems are focused on hydraulic, electrical,
and electro-mechanical components to actuate the parking brake system at the rear
wheels. The use of push-button switches and console touch screens can eliminate the
need for hand levers or foot pedals in the cabin interior. Electrical wiring and actuators
can provide input controls to initiate the clamping force at the rear wheels. This allows
the reduction (if not the elimination) in the length and number of cable assemblies routed
under and along the vehicle floor pan and sub-frame structures.
TRW offers a front and rear wheel electric park brake system (Image 4.8-42) that
provides four-wheel park brake capability with associated claims of improved safety.
Volkswagen has utilized an electro-hydraulic park brake system (Image 4.8-43) that is
initiated by an electric motor that drives a geared actuator providing direct hydraulic
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 632
pressure influence by pushing directly on the caliper piston inside the caliper housing.
Other designs offer a compromise of a hybrid approach, still using electronic actuation
and motor-driven systems but integrating them into the existing rear cable systems
already present on most vehicles (Image 4.8-44).
Image 4.8-42 (Left): TRW Park Brake System
(Source: http://www.buzzbox.com/news/2010-09-29/gas:technology/?clusterId=2019488)
Image 4.8-43 (Right): Volkswagen Park Brake System
(Source: http://www. volkspage. net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_346.pdf)
Image 4.8-44: Kuester Park Brake System
(http://www. kuester. net/pdf/Sonderdruck_engl.pdf)
4.8.3.3.1 Parking Brake Pedal Frame and Arm Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado parking brake pedal frame and arm sub-assembly
(Image 4.8-45) is a multi-piece design of stamped steel fabrication welded into a sub-
assembly comprised of several components, including: mounting plate assembly, return
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 633
spring, parking brake lever assembly, ratchet paw, ratchet return spring and cover plate.
This overall sub-assembly has a mass of 1.95 kg.
Many high-performance and luxury vehicle models have begun utilizing alternate
materials and designs in order to improve mass and expense. Another option being
implemented by many OEMs is to use electronics and button actuators in order to engage
the parking brake system. This allows for a complete elimination of pedal and hand lever
sub-assemblies for vehicle cab interiors, maximizing mass savings. This electronic
actuation configuration was also mentioned in the March 2010 Lotus Report.
Image 4.8-45: Parking Brake Pedal Frame Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.3.1.1 Mounting Plate
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado mounting plate is a single piece stamped steel
design and has a mass of 0.766 kg. The mounting plate (Image 4.8-46) is made from
stamped, light gage steel. Alternative materials being examined for use to further reduce
weight contribution include aluminum, high strength steels, and reinforced plastics.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 634
Image 4.8-46: Mounting Plate Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.3.1.2 Parking Brake Lever
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado parking brake lever is of a stamped steel design
and has a mass of 0.442 kg. The Parking Brake Lever (Image 4.8-47) is made from
stamped, light gage steel. Alternative materials being examined for use to further reduce
weight include aluminum, high strength steels, and reinforced plastics.
Image 4.8-47: Parking Brake Lever Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.3.1.3 Cover Plate
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado cover plate is a single piece stamped steel design
and has a mass of 0.405 kg. The cover plate (Image 4.8-48) is made from stamped, light
gage steel. Alternative materials being examined for use to further reduce weight
contribution include aluminum, high-strength steels, and reinforced plastics.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 635
Image 4.8-48: Cover Plate Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.3.2 Cable System Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado cable assemblies (Image 4.8-49) are multi-piece
designs of wound steel and sleeved poly shields into sub-assemblies with brackets and
fasteners added. This sub-subsystem has a mass of 2.73 kg. Many high-performance and
luxury vehicle models utilize alternate cable configurations with hand lever actuators
located in the center console between the front seats. This allows for a shorter path to the
rear parking brakes, therefore requiring less cable length (and weight).
Image 4.8-49: Cable System Current Sub-assemblies
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 636
4.8.3.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.8-12 shows mass reduction ideas from our brainstorming activity for the Parking
Brake and Actuation Subsystem. Ideas include material substitutions and use of parts
currently in production on other vehicles.
Table 4.8-12: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Parking Brake
and Actuation Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Parking Brake Lever &
Frame
Parking Brake Cables
Make parking brake lever & frame out of hiss
(55)
Make parking brake lever & frame out of
aluminum (56)
Make parking brake lever & frame out of
magnesium (57)
Make parking brake lever & frame out of
plastic composite (PA6 GF30) (58)
Make parking brake lever & frame out of
titanium (59)
Make out of synthetic cable
-2% wt save
-50% wt save
-60% wt save
-60% wt save
-30% wt save
-30% wt save
Low risk - ~3x cost increase
Low risk - -80% cost
increase
Racing/aftermarket- -80%
cost increase
Low risk - ~3x cost increase
Low risk - ~7x cost increase
-50% cost increase
4.8.3.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.8-13 shows one mass reduction idea for the Parking Brake and Actuation
Subsystem that we selected for detail evaluation.
Table 4.8-13: Mass Reduction Idea Selected for the Detailed Parking Brake and Actuation
Subsystem Analysis
CO
1— t-
CD
3
06
06
06
CO
|
CD
3
05
05
05
CO
CO
1
*rn
i— t-
CD
3
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Park Brake Lever & Frame
Parking Brake Cables
Mass-Reduction Ideas selected for Detail
Evaluation
Make parking brake lever & frame out of
Magnesium
Make out of synthetic cable
The chosen solution to implement for this study was to make these stamped steel
components (mounting plate, parking brake lever, and the cover plate) out of cast
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 637
magnesium and to make the parking brake cables out of a synthetic cable. The mass
reduced redesign of this entire Parking Brake and Actuator Sub-subsystem is now
reduced to 3.25 kg.
4.8.3.5.1 Parking Brake Pedal Frame and Arm Assembly
The three main components of the parking brake pedal frame and arm assembly were
changed from stamped steel construction to cast magnesium. The new mass reduced
mounting plate (Image 4.8-50), parking brake lever (Image 4.8-51), and cover plate
(Image 4.8-52) are pictured. This redesigned Chevrolet Silverado parking brake pedal
frame and arm assembly has a new calculated mass of 1.95 kg.
4.8.3.5.1.1 Mounting Plate
The mounting plate is now casted out of magnesium. The new mounting plate has a net
mass of 0.323 kg.
Image 4.8-50: Mounting Plate Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.5.1.2 Parking Brake Lever
The parking lever is now cast out of magnesium. This new parking brake lever has a net
mass of 0.186 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 638
Image 4.8-51: Parking Brake Lever Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.5.1.3 Cover Plate
The cover plate is now cast out of magnesium. This new cover plate has a net mass of
0.171kg.
Image 4.8-52: Cover Plate Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.5.2 Parking Brake Cables
The three parking brake cables were changed from braided steel construction to braided
synthetic cable. The new mass reduced front cable (Image 4.8-53), rear axle cable, LH
(Image 4.8-54), and rear axle cable, RH (Image 4.8-55) are pictured subsequently.
The redesigned Chevrolet Silverado parking brake cables have a new total calculated
mass of 1.21 kg versus the baseline mass of 1.73 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 639
4.8.3.5.2.1 Front Cable
The front cable is now made out of a woven synthetic cable. This new front cable has a
new mass of 0.307 kg versus the baseline mass of 0.439 kg.
Image 4.8-53: Front Cable Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.5.2.2 Rear Axle Cable, LH
The rear axle cable, LH is now made out of a woven synthetic cable. This new rear axle
cable, LH has a new mass of 0.332 kg versus the baseline mass of 0.474 kg.
Image 4.8-54: Rear Axle Cable, LH Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.5.2.3 Rear Axle Cable, RH
The rear axle cable, RH is now made out of a woven synthetic cable (Image 4.8-55). This
new rear axle cable, RH has a new mass of 0.571 kg versus the baseline mass of 0.816
kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 640
Image 4.8-55: Rear Axle Cable, RH Mass Reduced Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.3.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.8-14 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas evaluated for the Parking
Brake and Actuation Subsystem. This resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of
1.45 kg and a cost increase differential of $15.56.
Table 4.8-14: Mass Reductions and Cost Impact for the Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
CO
t
06
06
06
Subsystem
05
05
05
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
Description
Parking Brake and Actuation Subsystem
Parking Brake Controls
Parking Brake Cables and Attaching Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
Setec
D
X
X
Mass
R&ducxn
"t=s>
0.93
0.52
1.45
(Decrease)
Ccr I~p3~
T(2>
$0.14
-S15.70
-$15.56
Oncrease)
Average
Co*
Klogram
»g
$0.15
-$30.28
-$10.72
(Increase)
Subsys/ Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduefcn
'%•
19.8%
11.0%
30.9%
VehicteMass
ReducSan
•%•
0.04%
0.02%
0.06%
(1) "-«-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.8.4 Brake Actuation Subsystem
4.8.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Image 4.8-56 represents the major sub-assemblies components in the Brake Actuation
Subsystem. These include the brake pedal actuator sub-assembly, the accelerator pedal
actuator sub-assembly, master cylinder, master cylinder reservoir and various brake lines,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 641
hoses, and associated brackets and fasteners located on the vehicle that run to each brake
corner assembly at each wheel.
Image 4.8-56: Brake Actuation Subsystem Major Components and Sub-assemblies
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
As seen in Table 4.8-15, the Brake Actuation Subsystem consists of the master cylinder
and reservoir, actuator assemblies (brake and accelerator), and the brake lines and hoses.
The most significant contributors to the mass are the actuator assemblies (approximately
71.1%) followed by the brake lines and hoses (approximately 18.9%).
Table 4.8-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Brake Actuation Subsystem
CO
en
(D
3
06
06
06
06
CO
w
m
CD
3
06
06
06
06
CO
cr
cr
Cfl
CD
3
00
01
02
03
Description
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Master Cylinder and Reservoir
Actuator Assemblies
Brake Lines and Hoses
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"
1.07
7.58
2.02
10.66
101.0
2454
10.6%
0.43%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 642
4.8.4.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado's Brake Actuation Subsystem follows typical industry standards.
The Silverado uses a typical multi-zone master cylinder (Image 4.8-57) with
conventional ABS controls and steel tubing (Image 4.8-58) to each of the wheel brake
systems. The brake pedal actuator sub-assembly (Image 4.8-59) is made of conventional
stamped steel construction with welded assembly. It consists of multiple components that
are detailed following. The accelerator pedal actuator system (Image 4.8-63) is a set of
plastic injection molded components that are assembled together. The current OEM
Chevrolet Silverado Brake Actuation Subsystem assembly has a mass of 10.80 kg.
4.8.4.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Brake-by-wire is a fairly new technology that has had some trouble getting traction in the
auto industry. The idea of brake-by-wire is to replace the traditional hydraulic braking
components such as the master cylinder, ABS module, steel brake lines, brake hoses, and
brake fluid with electronic sensors and actuators/motors.
A hybrid brake-by-wire technology known as electro-hydraulic brake (EHB) system still
utilizes a master cylinder that sends fluid pressure to the brake calipers based on an
electric signal from the drivers brake pedal. With this technology, the mechanical
connection between the brake pedal and master cylinder has been eliminated.
Although brake-by-wire is still being developed by some OEM's and automotive part
suppliers, Mercedes has replaced all brake-by-wire applications with a conventional
hydraulic system. Mercedes used an electro-hydraulic system developed by Daimler and
Bosch called "Sensotronic Brake Control (SBC)" on the E-class models. Toyota launched
their electro-hydraulic system called "Electronically Controlled Brake" system on the
Estima and still uses it on several 2012 models such as the Lexus LFA.
4.8.4.3.1 Master Cylinder and Reservoir
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado master cylinder and reservoir sub-assembly
(Image 4.8-57) is a multi-piece design of cast aluminum and machined fabrication
assembled with various valving and sealing components. This overall sub-assembly has a
mass of 1.04 kg. This system is already highly optimized for design and materials
(aluminum and plastic) and therefore no further changes or solutions for mass reductions
were identified for implementation.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 643
4.8.4.3.2
Image 4.8-57: Master Cylinder and Reservoir Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Brake Lines and Hoses
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado brake lines and hoses (Image 4.8-58) are
conventional tubing designs with steel walls and flared ends with threaded line fittings
and appropriate brackets and fasteners added. This sub-subsystem has a mass of 1.93 kg.
This system is very conventional, but no newer designs or systems were identified for
replacement or improvement. The best solution choice for these components is to shorten
the length of the brake lines required by optimizing the routing paths.
Image 4.8-58: Brake Lines and Hoses Current Sub-assemblies
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 644
4.8.4.3.3 Brake Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado brake pedal actuator sub-assembly (Image
4.8-59) is a multi-piece design of stamped steel fabricated components welded together
as an assembly along with springs, pins, levers, and fasteners. These components have a
sub-assembly mass of 5.40 kg. This is a standard design configuration by nearly all
OEMs allowing for adequate function while using a proven design and simple materials
and processes. It is, however, not mass or cost efficient but instead is industry driven by
allowing the continued utilization of existing capital equipment, tooling and reusing
previous process/component designs.
Image 4.8-59: Brake Pedal Actuator Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.4.3.3.1 Brake Pedal Arm Frame Sub-Assembly
While this steel brake pedal frame design is extremely common, there are some high-
performance and luxury vehicle models that have begun utilizing alternate designs. These
include new designs for the pedal frame and housing sub-assembly (Image 4.8-60). The
new design utilizes a plastic framing and housing structure around the brake pedal arm
sub-assembly. These injection molded frames simplify design by reducing components,
ease assembly by eliminating welding and provide substantial weight savings. Other
possible solutions use similar processing but different materials, including aluminum,
high strength steel, magnesium, and titanium. This current welded sub-assembly has a
1.98 kg net mass.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 645
Image 4.8-60: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.4.3.3.2 Brake Pedal Arm Side Plates
While this steel brake pedal side plates (Image 4.8-61) design is common there are some
high performance and luxury vehicle models that began to utilize alternate designs. These
redesigns make use of lighter materials that allow a weight savings. Materials that are
considered include: aluminum, titanium, magnesium, and high strength steel. These
pieces are fabricated and machined to simplify design as provide substantial weight
savings. This current sub-assembly has a net mass of 1.07 kg.
Image 4.8-61: Brake Pedal Side Plate Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.4.3.3.3 Brake Pedal Arm Assembly
This steel brake pedal arm (Image 4.8-62) design is very common among OEMs. There
are however, some high-performance and luxury vehicle models that have begun utilizing
alternate designs. These include redesigns for material substitutions for the use of
aluminum, titanium, magnesium, high-strength steel, and reinforced plastics. These new
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 646
arms used simplified designs to reduce components and use light materials to provide
substantial weight savings. This current welded sub-assembly has a net mass of 1.50 kg.
Image 4.8-62: Brake Pedal Arm Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.4.3.4 Accelerator Pedal Actuator Sub-Assembly
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado accelerator pedal actuator sub-assembly (Image
4.8-63) is a multi-piece design of injection molded components, springs, pins, levers and
fasteners that are assembled together. This sub-assembly has a mass of 0.416 kg.
Image 4.8-63: Accelerator Pedal Actuator Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
This configuration is very common in the automotive industry and used by nearly all
OEMs. After researching for new designs, there were no significant mass reductions
solutions that were found to be able to replace this unit and achieve any appreciable
savings.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 647
4.8.4.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.8-16 shows mass reduction ideas that were brainstormed and considered for the
Brake Actuation Subsystem. These ideas include part modifications, material
substitutions, and use of parts currently in production on other vehicles.
Table 4.8-16: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Brake Actuation
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Accelerator Pedal
Mucell® lever, frame & pad (61)
-10% wt save
Low risk - -10% cost save
Brake Pedal Pad
Mucell® brake pedal pad (62)
-10% wt save
Low risk - -10% cost save
Brake Pedal Arm
Hollow plastic brake pedal and plastic arm
(PA6-GF33) (63)
Brake pedal arm from hiss (64)
Brake pedal arm from forged aluminum (65)
Brake pedal arm from magnesium (66)
Brake pedal arm from titanium (67)
-80% wt save
-10% wt save
-50% wt save
-60% wt save
-30% wt save
-20% cost increase
~3x cost increase
-90% cost increase
-100% cost increase
~7x cost increase
Brake Pedal Bracket
Aluminum support bracket (includes 2 sides,
top, lower spacer & sensor brkt) (68)
Magnesium support bracket (includes 2 sides,
top, lower spacer & sensor brkt) (69)
HSS support bracket (includes 2 sides, top,
lower spacer & sensor brkt) (70)
Plastic (PA6 GF30) support bracket (includes
2 sides, top, lower spacer & sensor brkt) (71)
Replace from comparable A2MAC1 database
(72)
-50% wt save
-60% wt save
-10% wt save
-40% wt save
0 wt save
-80% cost increase
-100% cost increase
~3x cost increase
~3x cost increase
0 cost change
4.8.4.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.8-17 shows the mass reduction ideas for the major components of the Brake
Actuation Subsystem that were selected for detail evaluation. There are five components
or sub-assemblies being redesigned and changed in order to achieve mass reductions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 648
Table 4.8-17: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Brake Actuation Subsystem
Jf
i
3
06
08
08
08
08
08
06
08
08
08
08
08
at
c
O"
1
at
c
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 649
10% with almost no cost penalty. This newly processed sub-assembly results in a reduced
net mass of 2.10kg.
4.8.4.5.4
Image 4.8-64: Accelerator Pedal Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Brake Pedal Arm
The steel brake pedal arm (Image 4.8-65) design is now being changed to a redesign
allowing the use PA6-GF. Due to the replacement of steel with an injection molded
plastic, an additional material volume of 80-90% was made. This design configuration is
becoming more common among OEMs and provides simple processing by injection
molding and enabling a simplified design and substantial weight savings. This particular
example shows a hollow insert being over-molded to further decrease weight and
improve strength. This new mass reduced sub-assembly has a net mass of 0.749 kg.
Image 4.8-65: Brake Pedal Arm Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
(Source: http://www. torquenews. com/auto-sector-stocks?page =2 7)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 650
4.8.4.5.5
Brake Pedal Pad
The currently designed brake pedal pad (Image 4.8-66) is typical for the automotive
industry and used by nearly all OEMs. There are no significant mass reductions solutions
found that could achieve any appreciable savings. However, the use of MuCell
technology during the molding process does allow for a small weight savings of
approximately 10% with almost no cost penalty. This newly processed part results in a
reduced net mass of 0.092 kg.
4.8.4.5.6
Image 4.8-66: Brake Pedal Pad Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Brake Pedal Brackets
The currently designed flat and offset brake pedal brackets (Image 4.8-67 and Image
4.8-68) are made from stamped steel. The selected redesign idea is to make the brackets
out of cast magnesium. These newly processed parts result in a reduced net mass of 0.202
kg and 0.207 kg, respectively.
Image 4.8-67 (Left): Flat Brake Pedal Pad Mass Reduced Component Example
Image 4.8-68 (Right): Offset Brake Pedal Pad Mass Reduced Component Example
(Sources: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 651
4.8.4.5.7
Brake Pedal Frame Assembly
The conventional steel brake pedal frame (Image 4.8-69) design has been replaced with a
cast magnesium design. Due to the replacement of steel with magnesium, an additional
material volume of 75-85% was made. This solution is being used in the 2013 Dodge
RAM 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4x4. These casted frames simplify design by reducing
components and easing assembly while also providing substantial weight savings. This
redesigned brake pedal frame has a reduced mass of 0.718 kg.
Image 4.8-69: Brake Pedal Arm Frame Mass Reduced Assembly Example
(Source: https://a2macl.com/AutoReverse/reversepart.)
The net result of all of these changes within the Brake Actuation Sub-subsystem returns a
new total mass of 8.14 kg.
Another brake actuator system design has also been developed by BMW (Image 4.8-70)
for use in some of their high end luxury and performance vehicles. This unit utilizes
plastic framing and pedal arms as well in order to reduce mass significantly.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 652
Image 4.8-70: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
(Source http://www.worldcarfans.com/111040531267/bmw-reveals-lightweight-component-innovations)
4.8.4.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.8-18 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated for the
Brake Actuation Subsystem. The implemented solutions resulted in a subsystem overall
mass savings of 2.53 kg and a cost increase of $0.46.
Table 4.8-18: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Brake Actuation Subsystem
CO
1
'"b"6"
06"
Subsystem
"06""
"o'tf
Sub- Subsystem
"bo
....„.„...
Desu^jfon
Brake Actuation Subsystem
Actuator Assemblies
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Lewi
Setec.
B
B
Mass
Reduction
•fcg'
ZI^IZI
2.53
(Decrease)
Cor l~:psc:
•«•»
""-$b"46
-$0.46
(Increase)
Average
Cost
K cgt3~
S/kg
-$0-18
-$0.18
(Increase)
Subsys/ Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reduoon
•%•
'23.7%
23.7%
VehcteMass
Red noon
•%'
b'"."i'b'%"
0.10%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "-«•" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 653
4.8.5 Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
4.8.5.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.8-19, the Power Brake Subsystem consists of the vacuum booster
system assembly.
Table 4.8-19: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
if)
ST
=i
06
06
CO
on
(D
3
07
07
c
cr
cr
(n
(D
3
00
01
Description
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Vacuum Booster System Asm
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"
4.24
4.24
101.0
2454
4.20%
0.17%
4.8.5.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado Power Brake Subsystem (Image 4.8-71) follows typical
industry standards in using a vacuum-actuated booster. The booster is a metal canister
that contains a valve and diaphragm and uses vacuum from the engine to multiply the
force a driver's foot applies to the master cylinder. A rod going through the center of the
canister connects to the master cylinder's piston on one side and to the pedal linkage on
the other. The booster also includes a check valve that maintains vacuum in the booster
when the engine is turned off, or if a leak forms in a vacuum hose. The vacuum booster
has to be able to provide enough volume and pressure within the brake line system for a
driver to make several stops in the event that the engine stops running.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 654
Image 4.8-71: Brake Power Brake Subsystem Major Sub-assembly Example
(Source:http://www.superChevrolet.com/technical/chassis/brakes/sucp_0901_power_brake_boosters)
4.8.5.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Some manufacturers have begun to implement a new system design that utilizes
solenoids and valves in order to maintain system pressure during various driving
conditions. This allows for removal of the typical conventional vacuum booster system
configuration. This smaller, but much more expensive system usually requires the
addition of wiring harnesses and control modules to process I/Os and regulate the system
operation. But this small addition of materials is minor when compared to the overall
mass saved by removing the booster unit. The result of this system exchange results in a
significant weight savings. This electro-mechanical system (Image 4.8-72) configuration
is utilized in the 2008 Toyota Prius. Another example of this technology is the
Hyperbrake™ system (Image 4.8-73) by Janel Hydro. It claims to completely eliminate
the vacuum booster by use of pistons and cylinders to amplify the hydraulic pressure of
the brake fluid.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 655
Image 4.8-72: Toyota Prius Hydraulic Pressure Booster
(Source: Lotus - 2010 March EPA Report)
YrcnoriAKL
Image 4.8-73: Janel Hyperbrake Hydraulic Pressure Booster
(Source: http://www.janelhydro. com/)
Staying within the traditional brake booster design, Continental recently announced the
development of an all aluminum brake booster called the Booster Gen. Ill (Image
4.8-74). This third generation design, has a reduced weight of nearly 50% and is 15 mm
shorter.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 656
Image 4.8-74: Continental's All Aluminum Brake Booster
(Source: http://wwwMutomotiveworld.com/news-releases/continental-develops-a-new-generation-of-lightweight-
brake-boosters/)
4.8.5.3.1
Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly
The baseline Chevrolet Silverado Vacuum booster assembly (Image 4.8-75) is a multi-
piece steel design. The major components within this assembly are made from stamped
steel (front shell - Image 4.8-76; rear shell - Image 4.8-77; front backing plate,
diaphragm - Image 4.8-82; rear backing plate, diaphragm - Image 4.8-83; spacer plate,
diaphragm - Image 4.8-84), small fabricated steel parts (piston, actuator - Image 4.8-78;
stud (MC to booster) - Image 4.8-79; stud (booster to firewall) - Image 4.8-80; pivot
shaft, actuator - Image 4.8-81) and a few plastic and rubber molded pieces (plunger
Boot, diaphragm, piston housing). These components are then assembled with various
processing methods and fasteners into the vacuum booster system. Together these
components have a net sub-assembly mass of 5.50 kg.
Image 4.8-75: Brake Pedal Actuator Mass Current Sub-assembly
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 657
4.8.5.3.1.1 Front Shell
This booster front shell (Image 4.8-76) is of a standard design configuration. It is
fabricated from a one-piece sheet metal stamping and painted for corrosion resistance.
There are a few alternate designs that have been tried in other vehicles. These new
designs utilize different materials including molded reinforced plastics, spun aluminum,
and HSS stampings. These alternative materials allow for simple manufacturing while
still providing substantial weight savings. The current steel front shell has a mass of 1.01
kg.
Image 4.8-76: Vacuum Booster Front Shell Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.3.1.2 Rear Shell
The current booster rear shell (Image 4.8-77) is a typical design used by many OEM
manufacturers. It is a fabricated one piece sheet metal stamping, painted for corrosion
resistance. There are some alternate designs that have been tried in other applications.
These other configurations utilize different materials including molded reinforced
plastics, spun aluminum and HSS stampings. These materials provide weight savings
while still allowing for simple manufacturing processes. The Silverado rear shell has a
mass of 0.782 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 658
Image 4.8-77: Vacuum Booster Rear Shell Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.3.1.3 Piston, Actuator
The machined steel piston, actuator (Image 4.8-78) design is very common among
OEMs. There are other material alternatives that allow for mass savings. These include
redesigns for material substitutions for the use of aluminum, titanium, magnesium, and
HSS. The Silverado piston actuator component has a mass of 0.065 kg.
Image 4.8-78: Piston, Actuator Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.3.1.4 Stud (MC to Booster)
The machined Stud (MC to booster) (Image 4.8-79) design is very common among
OEMs. There are other material alternatives that allow for mass savings. These include
redesigns for material substitutions for the use of aluminum, titanium, and HSS. The
Silverado stud (MC to booster) component has a mass of 0.043 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 659
Image 4.8-79: Stud (MC to Booster) Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.3.1.5 Stud (Booster to Firewall)
The machined stud (booster to firewall) (Image 4.8-80) design is very common among
OEMs. There are other material alternatives that allow for mass savings. These include
redesigns for material substitutions for the use of aluminum, titanium, magnesium, HSS,
and reinforced plastics. The Silverado stud (booster to firewall) component has a mass of
0.038kg.
Image 4.8-80: Stud (Booster to Firewall) Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.3.1.6 Pivot Shaft, Actuator
The machined pivot shaft, actuator (Image 4.8-81) design is very common among OEMs.
There are other material alternatives that allow for mass savings. These include redesigns
for material substitutions for the use of aluminum, titanium, and HSS. The Silverado
pivot shaft, actuator component has a mass of 0.095 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 660
Image 4.8-81: Pivot Shaft, Actuator Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.3.1.7 Front Backing Plate, Diaphragm
The stamped steel Front Backing Plate, Diaphragm (Image 4.8-82) design is very
common among OEMs. There are other material alternatives that allow for mass savings.
These include redesigns for material substitutions for the use of aluminum, titanium,
magnesium, HSS, and reinforced plastics. The Silverado front backing plate, diaphragm
component has a mass of 0.385 kg.
Image 4.8-82: Vacuum Booster Front Backing Plate, Diaphragm Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.3.1.8 Rear Backing Plate, Diaphragm
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado rear backing plate, diaphragm (Image 4.8-83) is
a single-piece, stamped steel design. This Silverado rear backing plate, diaphragm
component has a mass of 0.385 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 661
Image 4.8-83: Vacuum Booster Rear Backing Plate, Diaphragm Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.3.1.9 Spacer Plate, Diaphragm
The baseline OEM Chevrolet Silverado spacer plate, diaphragm (Image 4.8-84) is a
single-piece, stamped steel design. This Silverado rear backing plate, diaphragm
component has a mass of 0.376 kg.
Image 4.8-84: Vacuum Booster Spacer Plate, Diaphragm Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.8-20 shows mass reduction ideas that were brainstormed and considered for the
Power Brake Subsystem. Ideas include part modifications and material substitutions for
nine different components.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 662
Table 4.8-20: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Power Brake
Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hi
Front Shell
Make vacuum brake booster shell (front) out of
spun aluminum (73)
Make vacuum brake booster shell (front) out of
HSS (74)
Make vacuum brake booster shell (front) out of
die cast Magnesium (75)
Make vacuum brake booster shell (front) out of
Titanium (76)
Make vacuum brake booster shell (front) out of
molded & ribbed PA6 GF30 (77)
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
fdraulic)
-50% wt save
~10% wt save
-60% wt save
~30% wt save
~40% wt save
-100% cost increase
~3x cost increase
-80% cost increase
~7x cost increase
~3x cost increase
Rear Shell
Make vacuum brake booster shell (rear) out of
spun aluminum (78)
Make vacuum brake booster shell (rear) out of
HSS (79)
Make vacuum brake booster shell (rear) out of
die cast Magnesium (80)
Make vacuum brake booster shell (rear) out of
Titanium (81)
Make vacuum brake booster shell (rear) out of
molded & ribbed PA6 GF30 (82)
-50% wt save
-10% wt save
-60% wt save
-30% wt save
-40% wt save
-100% cost increase
~3x cost increase
-80% cost increase
~7x cost increase
~3x cost increase
Piston, Actuator
Make booster piston, actuator out of forged
aluminum (83)
Make booster piston, actuator out of HSS (84)
Make booster piston, actuator out of
Magnesium (85)
Make booster piston, actuator out of Titanium
(86)
-50% wt save
-10% wt save
-60% wt save
-30% wt save
-90% cost increase
~3x cost increase
-75% cost increase
~7x cost increase
Studs - MC to Booster
Make studs - long out of forged aluminum (87)
Make studs - long out of HSS (88)
Make studs - long out of Titanium (89)
-50% wt save
-10% wt save
-30% wt save
-100% cost increase
~3x cost increase
~8x cost increase
Studs - Booster to
Firewall
Make studs - long out of forged aluminum (91)
Make studs - long out of HSS (92)
Make studs - long out of Titanium (93)
-50% wt save
-10% wt save
-30% wt save
-95% cost increase
~3x cost increase
~8x cost increase
Pivot Shaft, Actuator
Make shaft, center plunger out of forged
aluminum (94)
Make shaft, center plunger out of HSS (95)
Make shaft, center plunger out of Titanium (96)
-55% wt save
-10% wt save
-60% wt save
-70% cost increase
~3x cost increase
~4x cost increase
Table 4.8-20 continued next page
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 663
Table 4.8-20 (Cont'd)
Component/ Assembly
Mass Reduction Idea
Power Brake Subsystem (for H\
Front Backing Plate
Make backing plate out of stamped aluminum
(97)
Make backing plate out of HSS (98)
Make backing plate out of ABS plastic (99)
Make backing plate out of magnesium (100)
Estimated Impact
Risk & Trade-offs and/or
Benefits
/draulic)
-60% wt save
-10% wt save
-30% wt save
-60% wt save
-50% cost increase
~3x cost increase
-70% cost increase
-70% cost increase
Rear Backing Plate
Make backing plate out of stamped aluminum
(101)
Make backing plate out of HSS (102)
Make backing plate out of ABS plastic (103)
Make backing plate out of magnesium (104)
-60% wt save
-10% wt save
-30% wt save
-60% wt save
-40% cost increase
~3x cost increase
-70% cost increase
-70% cost increase
Backing Plate Spacer
Make backing plate out of stamped aluminum
(105)
Make backing plate out of HSS (106)
Make backing plate out of ABS plastic (107)
Make backing plate out of magnesium (108)
-50% wt save
-10% wt save
-30% wt save
-60% wt save
-80% cost increase
~3x cost increase
-70% cost increase
-70% cost increase
4.8.5.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.8-21 shows mass reduction ideas for the Power Brake Subsystem that were
selected as final solutions for detailed evaluation for both mass and cost.
Table 4.8-21: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Detailed Power Brake (for Hydraulic) Subsystem
Analysis
$
ut
CD"
3
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
Subsystem
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
[sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Power Brake Subsystem (for Hydraulic)
Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Front
Vacuum Brake Booster Shell - Rear
Piston, Actuator
Studs - MC to BM
Studs - Booster to Firewall
Pivot Shaft. Actuator
Backing Plate, Front
Backing Plate, Rear
Backing Plate. Spacer
Mass-Reduction Ideas selected for Detail
Evaluation
Make out of die cast Magnesium
Make out of die cast Magnesium
Make out of die cast Magnesium
Make out of Forged Aluminum
Make out of Forged Aluminum
Make out of Titanium
Make out of die cast Magnesium
Make out of stamped Aluminum
Make out of die cast Magnesium
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 664
4.8.5.5.1 Vacuum Booster Sub-Assembly
The new brake vacuum booster sub-assembly (Image 4.8-85) is still a multi-piece design
as the original was but now using optimized, mass reduced components where applicable.
With these nine new component designs assembled together, this new booster sub-
assembly now has a reduced mass of 2.71 kg.
Image 4.8-85: Vacuum Booster Mass Reduced Sub-assembly Example
(Source: http://brakematerialsandparts.webs.com/boosterrebuilding.htm)
4.8.5.5.1.1 Front Shell
The conventional steel vacuum booster front shell (Image 4.8-86) design has been
replaced with a cast magnesium design. Due to the replacement of steel with magnesium,
an additional material volume of 75-85% was made. This design is not currently in any
high-production applications, but should become more accepted in lighter applications in
future model releases. This cast magnesium shell provides substantial weight savings and
has a reduced mass of 0.427 kg.
Image 4.8-86: Vacuum Booster Front Shell Mass Reduced Component Example
(Source: http://images, wrenchead. com/smartpages/partinfo_resize/A 1C/532282-01 Jpg)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 665
4.8.5.5.1.2 Rear Shell
The steel vacuum booster rear shell (Image 4.8-87) design has been replaced with a
single-piece cast magnesium component. Due to the replacement of steel with
magnesium, an additional material volume of 75-85% was made. This design is not
commonly used by OEMs but can easily be utilized in many current applications. This
casted shell retains a simplified design and uses a common manufacturing process while
still allowing for reasonable weight savings. This redesigned component has a reduced
mass of 0.330 kg.
Image 4.8-87: Vacuum Booster Rear Shell Reduced Mass Component Example
(Source: http://images, wrenchead. com/smartpages/partinfo_resize/A 1C/532282-01 .jpg)
4.8.5.5.1.3 Piston Actuator
The steel Piston Actuator (Image 4.8-88) design is now being replaced with a cast
magnesium design. Due to the replacement of steel with cast magnesium, an additional
material volume of 60-70% was made. This new mass reduced part has weight of 0.037
kg.
Image 4.8-88: Piston Actuator
(Source : FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.5.1.4 Stud, Booster to Firewall
The machined steel stud (booster to firewall) (Image 4.8-89) design is being replaced
with a forged aluminum design. Due to the replacement of steel with aluminum, an
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 666
additional material volume of 50-55% was made. This new mass reduced part has weight
of 0.021kg.
Image 4.8-89: Stud (Booster to Firewall) Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.5.1.5 Stud, Master Cylinder to Booster
The machined steel stud (MC to booster) (Image 4.8-90) design is being replaced with a
forged aluminum design. Due to the replacement of steel with aluminum, an additional
material volume of 50-55% was made. This new mass reduced part has weight of 0.023
kg.
Image 4.8-90: Stud (MC to Booster) Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.5.1.6 Pivot Shaft, Actuator
The steel machined pivot shaft, actuator (Image 4.8-91) design is now being replaced
with a titanium design. Due to the replacement of steel with titanium, an additional
material volume of 20-30% was made. This new mass reduced part has weight of 0.068
kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 667
Image 4.8-91: Pivot Shaft, Actuator Current Component
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.5.1.7 Front Backing Plate
The steel front backing plate (Image 4.8-92) design has been replaced with a single-piece
cast magnesium component. Due to the replacement of steel with magnesium, an
additional material volume of 75-85% was made. This design is not commonly used by
OEMs but can easily be utilized in many current applications. This casted plate retains a
simplified design and uses a common manufacturing process while still allowing for
reasonable weight savings. This redesigned component has a reduced mass of 0.162 kg.
Image 4.8-92: Vacuum Booster Front Backing Plate Reduced Mass Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.5.1.8 Rear Backing Plate
The steel rear backing plate (Image 4.8-93) design has been replaced with a single-piece
cast aluminum component. Due to the replacement of steel with aluminum, an additional
material volume of 50-55% was made. This design is not commonly used by OEMs but
can easily be utilized in many current applications. This casted plate retains a simplified
design and uses a common manufacturing process while still allowing for reasonable
weight savings. This redesigned component has a reduced mass of 0.208 kg.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 668
Image 4.8-93: Vacuum Booster Rear Backing Plate Reduced Mass Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.8.5.5.1.9 Spacer Plate
The steel spacer plate (Image 4.8-94) design has been replaced with a single-piece cast
magnesium component. Due to the replacement of steel with magnesium, an additional
material volume of 75-85% was made. This design is not commonly used by OEMs but
can easily be utilized in many current applications. This casted plate retains a simplified
design and uses a common manufacturing process while still allowing for reasonable
weight savings. This redesigned component has a reduced mass of 0.231 kg.
Image 4.8-94: Vacuum Booster Spacer Plate Reduced Mass Component Example
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 669
4.8.5.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.8-22 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated and
implemented for the Power Brake Subsystem. This included redesigns and modifications
being made to nine different components. The implemented solutions resulted in a
subsystem overall mass savings of 1.58kg and a cost increase of $24.64.
Table 4.8-22: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Power Brake (Hydraulic) Subsystem
W
i
fD
3
"06"
06
Subsystem
of
07
Sub- Subsystem
"oo"
01
Descriptor)
Power Brake [for Hydraulic) Subsystem
Vacuum Booster System Asm
Net Value of Mass Reduction Ideas
Idea
Level
See-
X
X
Mass
Reducfon
'fc9' :•;
1.58
1.58
(Decrease)
Ccs:l~p3~
VW
-$24.64
-$24.64
(Increase)
Average
CosV
K :gr=~
S/kg
415.57
-S15.57
(Increase)
Subsys/ Sub-
Subsys.
Mass
Reducfcn
•%•
37.3%
37.3%
Vehicle Mass
ReducSon
•%•
0.06%
0.06%
(1) "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.8.6 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
4.8.6.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The intent of investigating secondary mass savings is to quantify how much brake system
mass could be further reduced by reducing the vehicle mass.
To calculate the allowable secondary mass reduction (Table 4.8-23), the Chevrolet
Silverado baseline curb weight was reduced by 20%. Next, the Gross Combination
Weight Rating (GCWR) was lightened by adding the lightened curb weight to the
difference between the baseline GCWR and baseline curb weight (1963+(6804-2454)).
The lightened GCWR and baseline GCWR were ratioed to obtain the allowable mass
reduction factor of 7.2%.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 670
Table 4.8-23: Allowable Secondary Mass Reduction Calculation
Chevrolet Silverado Brake System
Secondary Mass Reduction/Compounding Calculation
Baseline Gross Combination Weight Rating (GCWR) 6804
Baseline Curb Weight (kgs) 2454
Lightened (GCWR) 6313
Lightened (20%) Curb Weight (kgs) 1963
Allowable Mass Reduction
(Lightened (GCWR)/Baseline (GCWR) 7.2%
Brake system components such as Rotors, Calipers, Caliper Mounting Brackets, and
Drums are sized based on the gross combination weight rating. Secondary mass savings
(Table 4.8-24) were derived from reduced component masses previously calculated for
lightweighting technologies. All other components like those associated with the
accessories and fasteners were not affected and masses were unchanged. The result is
2.01 kg of additional mass savings based on downsizing.
Table 4.8-24: Chevrolet Silverado Brake System Compounded Mass Savings by Component
1
2
3
4
6
Component
Front Brake Rotor Asm (2;
Caliper Housing (2)
Caliper Mounting Bracket (2)
Rear Brake Drum (2)
Backing Plate. Rear Brake Drum (2)
Total (kg)
New
Mass
(kg)
11
3.19
1.38
8.40
4.38
29
Downsizing Approach
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
Area Reduction
%
Reduction
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
Compounded
Mass Savings
(kg:
0.764
0.230
0.100
0.605
0.315
2.01
Material savings for compounded components was totaled to estimate the cost impact of
downsizing. Labor and burden costs were considered unchanged.
Table 4.8-25 details the mass and cost impact of all lightweighting activities and
compounding. These figures are based on downsizing the already lightweighted concept
as outlined in previous sections. The total mass reduction achieved for the Brake System
is 45.8 kg at a total cost impact of $148.92.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 671
Table 4.8-25: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Brake System Secondary Mass Savings
at
•-=:
(fl_
-$56.20
471.02
415.56
40.46
424.64
-$167.87
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"I" (2)
$10.84
$8.11
$0.00
$000
$0.00
$18.95
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$45.35
462.91
415.56
40.46
424.64
-$148.92
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
41.97
43.66
410.72
40.18
415.57
-$3.25
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.94%
0.70%
0.06%
0.10%
0.06%
1.87%
4.8.7 Brake System Material Analysis
The Material Categories for the Baseline Brake System and for the Total Mass Reduced
Brake System are shown in Figure 4.8-4. "High Strength Steel decreased from 85.6 kg to
7.09 kg. As can be seen, "Aluminum" increased significantly from 0.0 kg (baseline mass)
to 22.9 kg (total mass reduction) and "Magnesium" also increased from 0.0 kg (baseline
mass) to 7.23 kg (total mass reduction).
Baseline Brake System Total Mass Reduced Brake System
Brake System Material
Analysis
Brake System Material
Analysis
84.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.038%
1.71%
2.51%
0.0%
11.0%
Material Categories:
85.6 1. SteelS, Iron
0.0 2. H.S. Steel
0.0 3. Aluminum
0.0 4. Magnesium
0.0 5. Foam/Carpet
1.72 6. Rubber
2.53 7. Plastic
0.0 8. Glass
11.2 9. Other
13.0%
0.0%
41.9%
13.3%
0.1%
3.5%
9.0%
0.0%
19.3%
Material Categories:
7.09 1. SteelS, Iron
0.0 2. H.S. Steel
22.9 3. Aluminum
7.23 4. Magnesium
0.0 5. Foam/Carpet
1.89 6. Rubber
4.92 7. Plastic
0.0 8. Glass
10.5 9. Other
100% 101.0 TOTAL 100% 54.6 TOTAL
Figure 4.8-4: Baseline and Total Mass Reduced Brake System Material Distribution
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 672
4.9 Exhaust System
An exhaust system is tubing used to guide reaction exhaust gases away from a controlled
combustion inside an engine. The entire system conveys burnt gases from the engine,
expelling these toxic and/or noxious gases through one or more exhaust pipes. Depending
on the overall system design, the exhaust gas may flow through one or more of the
following: cylinder head and exhaust manifold; a turbocharger (to increase engine
power); a catalytic converter (to reduce air pollution); a muffler (to lessen noise). Image
4.9-1 shows the Chevrolet Silverado exhaust system.
The Exhaust System is comprised of the Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
(Table 4.9-1).
Image 4.9-1: Chevrolet Silverado Exhaust System
(Source: A2macl data base)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 673
Table 4.9-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Exhaust System.
rjl
%
03
09
09
Subsystem
00
01
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
Description
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsyre"
Mass
'kg'
3S.370
38.370
2454
1.56%
Exhaust System Material
Analysis
• L Steel £ Iran
• 2. HS. Steel
• 3. Aluminum
• £. Magnesium
• 5. foam/Carpet
™G. Rubber
•• 7. Plastic
« & Copper
9- Otfier
95.2%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
36.514
0.000
0.841
0.000
0.000
0.636
0.000
0.000
0.379
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. HS. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Copper
9. Other
100%
38.370 TOTAL
Figure 4.9-1: Calculated material content for the Exhaust System base BOM
Table 4.9-2 provides the mass and cost impact for the exhaust subsystems.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 674
Table 4.9-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Exhaust Subsystem
VJ
f.
CD
09
09
Subsystem
00
01
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
Cescrpxn
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea Level
Setec
D
D
Mass
Reduoon
•kg' m
6.340
6340
(Decrease;
Cos.* Impaci
'$'{2}
419.54
-$19.54
(Increase)
Average
Cos-;'
Klogram
Sftg
-$3.08
-$3.08
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
ReducSon
'%•
16.52%
16.52%
Vehicle
Mass
Reducaon
•%'
0.26%
0.26%
(1J "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.9.1 Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
4.9.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As seen in Table 4.9-3, the Crossover Pipe Assembly, Expansion Clamp Assembly and
Muffler Sub-subsystems are included in the Acoustical Control Components Subsystem.
Table 4.9-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Acoustical Control Components Subsystem
U)
^<
U).
<£
3
09
09
09
09
Subsystem
00
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
Description
Exhaust System
Cross Over Pipe Assembly
Expansion clamp assy
Muffler
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
15.532
3.806
19.032
38.370
38.370
2454
100.00%
1.56%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 675
4.9.1.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
For the Acoustic Control Components Subsystem, the total 38.4 kg weight does include
the muffler. It also includes the front crossover pipe assembly section, which includes
three catalytic converters. The crossover pipe and the down pipe are made of 409 grade
stainless steel (Image 4.9-2).
Image 4.9-2: Crossover Pipe Assembly
(Source: A2macl data base)
The job of the catalytic converter is to convert harmful pollutants into less harmful
emissions before expulsion from the car's exhaust system. The converters consist of a
cordierite structure coated with a metal catalyst, usually platinum, rhodium, and/or
palladium. The idea is to create a structure that exposes the maximum surface area of
catalyst to the exhaust stream while also minimizing the amount of catalyst required, as
the materials are extremely expensive. Some of the newest converters even use gold
mixed with the more traditional catalysts. Gold is cheaper than the other materials and
could increase oxidation, the chemical reaction that reduces pollutants, by up to 40%.
The main emissions from a car engine are:
• Nitrogen gas (N2) - Air is 78% nitrogen gas, and most of this passes right through
the car engine.
• Carbon dioxide (CO2) - This is one product of combustion. The carbon in the fuel
bonds with the oxygen in the air.
• Water vapor (H2O) - This is another product of combustion. The hydrogen in the
fuel bonds with the oxygen in the air.
These emissions are mostly benign, although carbon dioxide emissions are believed to
contribute to global warming. Because the combustion process is never perfect, some
smaller amounts of more harmful emissions are also produced in car engines. Catalytic
converters are designed to reduce all three:
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 676
• Carbon monoxide (CO) is a poisonous gas that is colorless and odorless.
• Hydrocarbons or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are a major component
of smog produced mostly from evaporated, unburned fuel.
• Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2, together called NOX) are a contributor to smog and
acid rain, which also causes irritation to human mucus membranes.
Image 4.9-10 shows how the catalytic converter works.
3
Image 4.9-3: Catalytic Converter
(Source: Google Images)
In Image 4.9-10 is a large pile of platinum lined catalytic converter cores and the basic
ceramic core.
- -:":• ::::.:,:;..
Image 4.9-4: Catalytic Converter Cores
(Source: howstuffworks.com/Getty images/Google Images)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 677
®
Touchstone Research Laboratory in West Virginia created a potential new structure to
replace the cordierite used in today's catalytic converter. The product, under the company
name CFOAM®, has the potential to reduce the mass by up to 31% and at a cost savings
of up to 94% using coal in place of cordierite. The actual cost savings will vary
depending on several factors, including the market price of coal, the specific coal needed
for producing the best converter, and any additional steps that may be needed for
oxidation protection.
SUPER-CARBON FOAM
Image 4.9-5: CFOAM® Carbon Foam
(Source: Touchstone Research Laboratory)
Advances in catalytic converters and emission systems have reduced emissions by more
than 95% from the uncontrolled period of the 1960s. In order for a catalytic converter to
perform efficiently, it must allow for the exhaust gases to pass in close proximity to the
catalytic materials on the substrate's surface. Also, the element must at the same time
create a low restriction in the flow of exhaust gases. Furthermore, as emission restrictions
tighten even more, increasing emphasis is being placed on the time it takes to bring a
catalytic converter to operating temperature, during which time 60%-80% of all non-
methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions occur. CFOAM
Carbon Foam's open cell structure presents an ideal high surface area catalyst substrate in
which the flow path through the foam creates a mixing effect to the exhaust stream. This
mixing effect increases exposure of the exhaust gases to the catalysts and can increase the
efficiency of the converter. By controlling the electrical resistivity of the carbon foam
substrate and applying current to the catalyst element, the entire substrate can act as an
electric heating element and shorten the time required to reach operational temperatures
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 678
through variations of thermal properties. CFOAM Carbon Foam can also be designed as
the shell that houses the catalyst elements further reducing cost and weight.
Among the R&D programs at Touchstone are the development of a new set of non-
metallic designs utilizing a set of materials which were largely unavailable just a few
years ago. The creation of non-metallic exhaust systems stemmed out of the development
of new carbon foam at Touchstone made from coal, CFOAM, which was thought to be
the answer to a new, high temperature core in composite sandwich structures. CFOAM
carbon foam can be used indefinitely to about 650°F (343°C). Utilizing CFOAM carbon
foam with ceramic matrix composites and polymer composites, Touchstone has
developed a set of unique designs to handle the exhaust from internal combustion
engines, and turbine engines.
The ceramic matrix composites Touchstone is utilizing will operate at temperatures up to
3600°F (2000°C) and the polymer composite systems will operate up to about 450°F
(232°C). Lightweight, non-metallic exhaust systems can provide higher engine operating
efficiencies, improved handling of high performance automobiles and boats, and opens
the design envelope to manufacture designs difficult with typical metal designs. For
example, imagine a composite cowling where the exhaust system is integral in the
aerodynamic design of the engine cowling and where the shape of the exhaust can be
designed without the preconceived notion that the exhaust system will always be circular
in cross section. Touchstone has all the equipment and expertise to develop these non-
metallic exhaust systems.
Down pipe with a stainless steel expansion connector, the down pipe is made of 409ss
(Image 4.9-6).
Image 4.9-6: Down Pipe
(Source: FEV, Inc. andA2macl data base)
The muffler with tail pipe is made from aluminized steel (Image 4.9-7).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 679
Image 4.9-7: Muffler with Tail Pipe
(Source: A2macl data base)
The Chevrolet Silverado's other technologies include EDPM hangers and welded hanger
brackets (Image 4.9-8), and rubber hanger and car side hanger brackets (Image 4.9-9).
Image 4.9-8: Pipe Side Hanger Brackets
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.9-9: Rubber Hanger (left) and Car Side (right) Hanger Brackets
(Source: FEV, Inc. and A2macldata base)
Image 4.9-10 shows a section view of the exhaust and the pipe as a whole without the
crossover pipe.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 680
Image 4.9-10: Silverado Exhaust System
(Source: A2macl data base)
4.9.1.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Industry trends vary for exhaust systems, ranging from mild steel, titanium, special
grades of stainless steel, and magnesium in race cars to low-production vehicles. There
are many different types of stainless steel that can be considered for exhaust systems. The
use of tailor-welded blanks of different types of stainless steel allows for thicker and
thinner areas of stainless steel as needed. A common type is austenitic stainless such as
304. It is difficult to fabricate, however, owing to the rate of strain hardening. If very
severe bending is required, it may be necessary to stress-relieve the material by annealing
the pipe part of the way through the forming process. There are other stainless materials
available in the 300 Series stainless family, but they are more brittle and have a poorer
thermal shock performance than 409 Series stainless, which is most often used in today's
OEM stainless systems. Although using 304 in place of 409ss allows for a thinner wall
thickness thereby reducing weight. The down and cross over pipes thinning might cause
an NVH issue and in this study the compounding of the engine size also reduced the
exhaust size and may have alleviated the NVH issue and if not the study has added
money in the total cost rollup to account for any unforeseen NVH issues.
While titanium is widely used for exhausts on motorcycles, the automotive industry has
largely shunned this material, and for good reason: The bending stresses from forming
titanium sheets requires extra supports to prevent cracking at high stress areas.
Titanium's main advantage, however, is its low density: approximately 40% lower
density than stainless steel. Since 2006, the use of titanium alloys for automotive exhaust
systems manufacturing has increased for the high-end market vehicles. Titanium alloys
used for exhaust system fabrication use additional alloying elements, as aluminum,
copper, niobium, silicon, and iron. The addition of these elements significantly increases
the oxidation resistance and mechanical properties of the alloy. Image 4.9-11 shows a
titanium exhaust system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 681
Image 4.9-11: Titanium Exhaust System
(Source: Google Images)
Some materials that are being considered for future applications are carbon fiber rap with
high premature resins. Muffler shells are constructed using high-temp carbon fiber,
stainless steel, titanium, or Inconel materials. Carbon fiber shells feature a two-twill
pattern that is autoclaved to maintain precise spec and lasting durability. The 304 Series
stainless steel shells are made from lightweight thin wall material. The aircraft grade
titanium and Inconel shells are made from .023" wall material and are super lightweight.
The motorcycle industry is currently using this technique, and will soon cross over into
the high production automotive industry once the supply ramps up to bring the cost of
carbon fiber down as shown in Image 4.9-12.
Image 4.9-12: Carbon Fiber
(Source: Google Images)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 682
Other trends for exhaust systems include the use of different materials for the metal
hanger brackets, such as the hollow stainless steel and titanium hanger brackets as shown
in Image 4.9-13.
Image 4.9-13: Hollow Hanger Brackets
(Source: Google Images)
EDPM (or rubber) hangers are used by most OEMs today, including on the Chevrolet
Silverado as shown in Image 4.9-14.
Image 4.9-14: EDPM Hanger
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
SGF® is a European automotive supplier of exhaust hangers. They have a patented
process for adding cord inlay to the exhaust hangers that reduces weight and size. SGF
exhaust hangers were also selected as a means of mass reduction. SGF hangers'
advantages include:
• Weight reduction, up to 37% lighter than competitor's models.
• Very high load capacity in X, Y, and Z directions
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 683
Reduce the number of hangers and hanger brackets
Packaging: Due to becoming 40% more narrow, hangers can be positioned tight to
the exhaust system
Up to 21 times the life cycles of competitors' models
Extreme durability, including high- and low-temperature performance
The hangers do not need to be changed over the lifetime of the car
High break load: 10 kN
Use of EPDM instead of expensive silicon rubber
Cord inlay for strength
Using the SGF hangers reduced the number of hangers and hanger brackets on the car
side as well as the pipe side.
A recommendation by SGF to remove three hangers on the existing exhaust system
would require the new hangers and brackets to be relocated, as Figure 4.9-2 shows.
Weight, Material, Dimension
Durability, Testing Conditions and Results
Weight and
number of parts:
Size (y-axis)
Material
Bolt diameter
SGF LSOOO-E077-
002 ^
$>
45 grams/ 3pcs
25 mm
EPDM
10mm
Toyota 17565-
OP041 A
68 grams/ 6 pcs
34mm
EPDM
12mm
120°C; Z=45N +- 180N
120°C; Z=90N +- 360N
SGF LSOOQ-E077-
002 A
4 Parts,
stopped without
any fault at 800000
cycles
Toyota 17565-OP041
1
Failed at 42000 cycles
Specimen No
1: Failed at 1600 cycles
2:Failed at 2379 cycles
Figure 4.9-2: SGF® Existing Exhaust System Recommendation
(markings indicate location of hangers to be removed)
(Source: SGF)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 684
Figure 4.9-3 shows an example of how the SGF hangers, which are smaller in size with
more strength, result in an up to 37% lighter product. Note that the hanger strength comes
from the cord inlay reinforcement.
120 grams
45 grams
Each of the 4 segments acts as a bending beam
The cord inlay (reinforcement) is the neutral fiber
ord inlay
Cord inlay
The single windings are bonded together by the rubber.
Therefore the windings are working like a leaf spring.
f X Driving-direction
In z-direction the cord inlay are
compliant, like a leaf spring
In y-direction the cord inlay are
stiff, like a leaf spring.
Figure 4.9-3: SGF Hangers
(Source: Presentation material and information provided by SGF)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 685
4.9.1.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Ideas considered for the exhaust weight reduction were a titanium system, different types
of stainless steels, Mubea TRT, hollow hangers and using optional materials for the
exhaust rubber hanger grommets (Table 4.9-4).
Table 4.9-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Exhaust System
Com ponent/Assem bly
Acoustic Control
Components
Crossover pipe assy
Crossover pipe assy
Crossover pipe assy
Crossover pipe assy
Down pipe assy
Down pipe assy
Down pipe assy
Down pipe assy
EDPM Exhaust hanger
EDPM Exhaust hanger
Steel Exhaust hanger
brkt
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler
Muffler pipe
Muffler pipe
Muffler pipe
Muffler pipe
Mass-Reduction Idea
Base cross pipe using TRB
Base cross pipe reduce wall thickness from
1.9mm 409ss wall to 1.2mm 304ss ((Can't
reduce pipe wall without going to 304ss))
Base 409SS to GR2 titanium alloy
Base 409SS to GR2 titanium alloy, then
reduce wall thickness from 1.6mm wall to
12mm
Base cross pipe using TRB
Base down pipe reduce wall thickness from
1.9mm 409ss wall to 1.2mm 304ss ((Can't
reduce pipe wall without going to 304ss))
Base 409SS to GR2 titanium alloy
Base 409SS to GR2 titanium alloy, then
reduce wall thickness from 1.6mm wall to
1.2mm
SGF for rubber Hanger Isolators
Use Polyone foaming agent
Hollow exhaust hangers and make 304SS
Base grade Al/steel to 304SS
304SS and go from 1.4mm wall to 1mm
Base grade Al/steel to titanium alloy
Titanium alloy and go from 1.4mm wall to
1mm
Base grade Al/steel to 304SS
304SS and go from 1.4mm wall to 1mm
Base grade Al/steel to titanium alloy
Titanium alloy and go from 1.4mm wall to
1mm
Estimated Impact
20% Mass Reduction
34% Mass Reduction
48% weight save &
with big cost increase
64% weight save &
with cost increase
20% Mass Reduction
34% Mass Reduction
48% weight save &
with big cost increase
64% weight save &
with cost increase
70% weight save &
cost increase
10% weight save &
with Save
29% weight save &
cost save
3% weight save & cost
increase
31% weight save &
with big cost increase
49% weight save &
with cost increase
63% weight save &
with cost increase
3% weight save & cost
increase
31% weight save &
™t]Tj)igj;pjtJ|Tcnease__
49% weight save &
with cost increase
63% weight save &
with cost increase
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Risk: Cost increase
Benefit: Control over wall thicknesses, Lighter weight,
Risk: Can't reduce pipe wall without going to 304ss
Benefit: Lighter weight, better impact resistance
Risk: Less impact resistance, Higher material cost, harder to weld
Benefit: Lighter weight
Risk: Less impact resistance, Higher material cost, harder to weld
Benefit: Lighter weight, Control over wall thicknesses,
Risk: Cost increase
Benefit: Control over wall thicknesses, Lighter weight,
Risk: Can't reduce pipe wall without going to 304ss
Benefit: Lighter weight, better impact resistance
Risk: Less impact resistance, Higher material cost, harder to weld
Benefit: Lighter weight
Risk: Less impact resistance, Higher material cost, harder to weld
Benefit: Lighter weight, Control over wall thicknesses,
Risk: None
Benefit: Cost increase, Lighter weight, better impact resistance,
possiblity to use less qty
Risk: Manage foaming pellets and mixing
BejTeJrlt^fa^terjDj/cJeJi^^
Risk: Rust, Less impact resistance, harder to control welding
Benefit: Cost save, Lighter weight,
Risk: Big cost increase for little weight save
Benefit: Lighter weight, better impact resistance, stronger
Risk: Less impact resistance
Benefit: Cost less Lighter weight
Risk: Less impact resistance, Higher material cost, harder to weld
Benefit: Lighter weight
Risk: Less impact resistance, Higher material cost, harder to weld
Benefit: Lighter weight, Control over wall thicknesses,
Risk: Big cost increase for little weight save
Benefit: Lighter weight, better impact resistance, stronger
Risk: Less impact resistance
jBenefjt:_CostJessJJ2hterweig]Tt
Risk: Less impact resistance, Higher material cost, harder to weld
Benefit: Lighter weight
Risk: Less impact resistance, Higher material cost, harder to weld
Benefit: Lighter weight, Control over wall thicknesses,
4.9.1.5 Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.9-5 includes the mass reduction ideas that were selected for the Exhaust System.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 686
Table 4.9-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Exhaust System
CD
09
09^
J?i
09
| Subsystem
00
11
J91
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
_P±
J??.
03
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Exhaust System
Cross Over Pipe Assembly
Ex pant! on clamp assy
Down pipe to muffler
Steel hanger brkt
Rubber hanger
Muffler
Muffler skin
Steel hanger brkt
Rubber hanger
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Base cross pipe reduce wall thickness from 1 .9mm
409ss wall to 1 .2mm 304ss ((Can't reduce pipe
wall without going to 304ss))
Base down pipe reduce wall thickness from 1 .9mm
409ss wall to 1 .2mm 304ss ((Can't reduce pipe
wall without going to 304ss))
Hollow exhaust hangers and make 304SS
SGF for rubber Hanger Isolators
Base grade Al/steel to 304SS & 304SS and go from
1 .4mm wall to 1 mm
Hollow exhaust hangers and make 304SS
SGF for rubber Hanger Isolators
4.9.1.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.9-6 shows the weight and cost reductions per subsystem.
Table 4.9-6: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Acoustical Control Components
Subsystem.
!
09
09
09
09
'£
CT
1
00
01
01
01
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
Dcsoftfon
Exhaust System
Cross Over Pipe Assembly
Expantion clamp assy
Muffler
(1) "*" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
{2} "-•-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Sss::
A
C
D
D
Mass
RediKfon
'l;9' !•:
1.460
0.711
4.169
6.340
(Decrease)
Cos.: Impac
'S"<2>
$0.79
-$1.09
-$19.24
-$19.54
(Increase)
Average
cos.-;
Ktogram
S/kg
$0.54
-$1.53
-$4.61
-$3.08
(Increase)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducion
•HP
9.40%
18.68%
21.91%
16.52%
Vehicle
Mass
Redudon
•%•
0.06%
0.03%
0.17%
0.26%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 687
The secondary mass reduction was obtained by an overall 20% mass reduction of the
vehicle and this affected the Exhaust System by a 3.5% reduction of the pipe and muffler
pipe diameter of the exhaust.
The base Silverado exhaust system is made up of different pipe sections: the cross-over
pipe assembly, down pipe to muffler, muffler, and the muffler pipe.
Since the vehicle was down sized by a 20% weight reduction which correlated into a
reduction of the engine by 7.0%, this in turn reduced the exhaust systems pipe sections
diameter by 3.5%
The reduction by downsizing is a .605 kg weight savings and a $5.85 cost decrease. This
added to the base system weight savings equaled an overall weight savings of 6.95 kg and
a cost increase of-$13.69.
4.9.2 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
Table 4.9-7 shows the secondary mass reduction and what the total reduction would be.
Table 4.9-7: Calculated Subsystem Mass and Secondary Reduction and Cost Impact Results for
Exhaust System.
CO
*-=:
(D
3
05
09
Subsystem
00
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
Description
Exhaust System
Acoustical Control Components
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" !-}
6.34
6.34
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" d)
0.605
0.605
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i>
6.95
6.95
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$"(2)
-$19.54
-$19.54
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$5.85
$5.85
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$13.69
-$13.69
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$1.97
-$1.97
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.28%
0.28%
(1} "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "•«-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.9.3 Exhaust System Material Analysis
The charts in Figure 4.9-4 show the weight reduction redistrubtion of the materials from
the base exhaust materials to the new materials used in the study.
-------
Baseline Exhaust System
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 688
Total Exhaust System
Exhaust System Material
Analysis
• 1. Steel & Iran
• 2. as. Steel
*- Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
1-1 6. Rubber
7. Plastic
i.a Copper
9. Ottier
Exhaust System Material
Analysis
• 1 Steel & Iron
• 2. KS. Steel
• 3. Aluminum
• 4 Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
»& Rubber
- Plsai:
I 8. Copper
9. Ottief
95.2%
0.0%
2.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
100%
Material Categories:
36.514 1. SteelS Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.841 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.636 6. Rubber
0.000 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Copper
0.379 9. Other
95.5%
0.0%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
38.370 TOTAL
100%
Material Categories:
30.025 1. SteelS Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.841 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.180 6. Rubber
0.000 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Copper
0.379 9. Other
31.425 TOTAL
Figure 4.9-4: Calculated Exhaust System Baseline Material and Total Material Content
4.10 Fuel System
The Fuel System is combination of many items from the fuel filler system going into the
fuel tank to the fuel pump, which delivers the fuel to the engine fuel injectors. There is
also a fuel vapor management system that captures fuel vapors from the vehicle gas tank
during refueling and running.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 689
Image 4.10-1: Silverado Fuel System
(Source: A2macl)
There are two subsystems in the Fuel System for the Chevrolet Silverado: the Fuel Tank
and Lines Subsystem, and the Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem. Comparing these
subsystems in Table 4.10-1, the Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem was found to carry the
greatest mass total of the two.
Table 4.10-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Fuel System
to
•&
(D
10
10
10
Subsystem
00
01
02
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
Descriptor)
Fuel System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
•kg'
22.598
3.742
26.340
•2454
1.07%
-------
Fuel System Material
Analysis
19.0%
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 690
18.7%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
58.8%
0.0%
19.0%
4.928
0.396
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.531
15.489
0.000
4.997
Material Categories:
1. Steel &lron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Copper
9. Other
100%
26.340 TOTAL
Figure 4.10-1: Calculated Material Content for the Fuel System Base BOM
Table 4.10-2 shows that, comparing the subsystems under the Fuel System, the greatest
opportunity for mass reduction falls under the Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem. The
calculated mass reduction results for the ideas generated related to the Fuel System. A
mass savings of 1.61 kg was realized with a cost reduction of $3.25 which results in a
cost savings of $2.02 per kg.
Table 4.10-2: Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Fuel System.
cn
t
(D
10
10
10
CO
&
Cfl
m
(D
00
01
02
fa
<^
cr
¥
cr
trt
-a
05
00
00
00
Descriptor!
Fuel System
Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Ss £"
A
A
A
i
Mass
Reducfon
'kg'
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 691
4.10.1 Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem
4.10.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem is comprised primarily of the fuel tank and
associated fuel lines between the fuel filler neck and cap to the fuel tank. The fuel lines
between the fuel tank and fuel pump are also included in this subsystem.
Image 4.10-2: Fuel Tank Assembly (Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem)
(Source: A2macl)
Table 4.10-3 shows the four sub-subsystems that make up The Fuel Tank and Lines
Subsystem. The most significant contributor to the mass of this subsystem is the fuel tank
assembly. This includes the tank, baffles, fuel pump, sending unit and exterior tank
mounting brackets.
Table 4.10-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Fuel Tank and Lines Subsystem.
CO
••<
en
(D
3
10
10
10
10
10
Subsystem
01
01
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Description
Fuel Tank and Lines
Fuel Tank Assy
Fuel Distribution
Fuel Filler (Refueling)
Fuel Tank Control Module (FTCM)
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
15.475
5.090
0.912
1.121
22.598
26.340
2454
85.80%
0.92%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 692
4.10.1.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado Fuel System has some typical items that are found across many
of today's vehicles; however, it also has some weight saving advantages built into the
2010 model already. For example some OEM's still manufacture steel tanks. The
Silverado tank is made from a high-density polyethylene HDPE plastic to reduce weight,
such as shown in Image 4.10-3.
Image 4.10-3: Silverado Fuel Tank
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.10.1.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
4.10.1.3.1 Fuel Tank
Industry reports indicate more than 95% of the fuel tanks produced in Europe are made
from plastics. Plastic tanks have become the primary material of choice in Europe and
North America for many reasons:
1. A plastic tank system weighs two-thirds less than an average steel tank system.
Advantages of the blow molding process used to make fuel tanks:
a. Sheet polymer material for blow molding is high density polyethylene
(HDPE), which has a lower density than water and is very chemically
resistant.
b. HDPE can be treated or laminated with barrier materials such as LLDPE
which provides very effective emission control, rupture resistance, and
extended temperature range.
c. Tooling for blow molding is lower cost and is not stressed as heavily as
tooling for steel parts.
d. The main peripheral welded seam for the steel tank is eliminated with
blow molding of HDPE. Components like filler necks can be welded to
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 693
the HDPE tank to seal and secure, and it will use much less energy than
steel welding.
2. Plastics offer design flexibility for complex shapes, which are difficult to attain
with steel. This includes integral connection features for attaching other fuel system
components such as the vapor canister.
3. Impact and corrosion resistance is provided without secondary operations. No
painting or coating is required.
Although not priced in our cost reduction estimates, life cycle total energy costs are also
reduced using plastic:
• Plastic materials can be created and processed at lower temperatures than steel.
• Lower energy levels are required to recycle plastic than steel.
Regarding environmental concerns, feedstock for HDPE made from bio materials will be
produced in at least one manufacturing plant (Braskem) which will help reduce our
dependence on petroleum. Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company headquartered
in Sao Paulo. The company is the largest petrochemical in the Americas by production
capacity and the fifth largest in the world. By revenue it is the fourth largest in the
Americas and the 17th in the world. Some of this reference information was obtained
through the internet.
4.10.1.3.2 Fuel Pump
Industry trends for the fuel pump (Image 4.10-4) to attach to the gas tank have been to
remove the old two-piece stamping with interlocking and replace them with threads
molded into the tank and a corresponding treaded cap as shown in Image 4.10-5.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 694
Image 4.10-4: Fuel Pump
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.10-5: Fuel Pump Mount Assembly (original at left; new at right)
(Source: A2macl)
4.10.1.4 Summary of Mass reduction Concepts Considered
Brainstorming activities generated all of the ideas in Table 4.10-4. There are several
suppliers and websites supporting the use of other components within the Fuel System.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 695
Table 4.10-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially considered for the Fuel Tank and
Lines Subsystem.
Component/Assembly
Fuel Tank & Lines
Fuel Tank side - fuel pump ret. Ring
Fuel Tank side - fuel pump ret. Ring
Fuel Tank side - fuel pump ret. Ring
Fuel Tank side - fuel pump ret. Ring
Fuel Tank Shield-Bottom
Fuel Tank Shield-Bottom
Fuel Tank Shield-Bottom
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Pumping Module
Fuel Pumping Module Ret. Ring
Fuel Pumping Module Ret. Ring
Fuel Pumping Module Ret. Ring
Fuel Pumping Module Ret. Ring
Fuel Pumping Module Ret. Ring
Fuel Pumping Module Ret. Ring
Fuel Pumping Module Ret. Ring
Fuel filler neck
Fuel filler neck
Fuel filler neck
Fuel filler neck
Fuel filler neck
Fuel filler Cap housing
Fuel filler Cap housing
Fuel filler Cap housing
Fuel Cap
Fuel Cap
Fuel Cap
Hose Clamps
Mass- Re duct ion Idea
Remove ring and add POM to tank to make
plastic ring for new POM (fuel pumping module
retaining ring made out of POM to screw onto)
Make out of Aluminium
Make out of Titanium
Make out of Magnesium
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
Use MuCell gas process
Combo, plastic and PolyOne
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
Use MuCell gas process
Make out of Aluminium
make the cover out of plastic (POM)
Make out of Aluminium
Make out of Aluminium
Make out of Titanium
Use Polyone foaming agent
Estimated Impact
+32% Mass Increase ((Mass
reduction seen in other
subsystem))
Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
75% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
57% Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
Use SMglass bubbles 6% Mass Reduction
Use MuCell gas process
Remove, and combine with POM stye fuel tank
ring assy
Change to plastic
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use SMglass bubbles
Use MuCell gas process
Combo, plastic and PolyOne
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use SMglass bubbles
Use MuCell gas process
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use SMglass bubbles
Use MuCell gas process
-~~-~~-~-~~-Q^^^~ ----------
10% Mass Reduction
28% Mass Reduction
38% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6.75% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
42% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
8.55% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
8.55% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Added material to gas tank to make threaded lip, removed steel ring,
cheap 8- easyto manufature
Cost increase due to aluminum pricing, bigger due to added material for
same strength
os increase ue o i anium pricing, ar er o manu ac ure
Cost increase due to titanium pricing, harder to manufacture
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
close cost to steel when weight is reduced, easyto manufacture, can do
class "A" surface, No added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
Cost increase due to aluminum pricing, bigger due to added material for
same strength
Subject to plastic pricing, removed steel stampings and braze
operations, cheap 8- easyto manufature
Cost increase due to aluminum pricing, bigger due to added material for
same strength
Cost increase due to aluminum pricing, bigger due to added material for
same strength
Cost increase due to titanium pricing, harder to manufacture
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
Remove ring and add POM to tank to make plastic ring for new POM (fuel
pumping module retaining ring made out of POM to screw onto)
Subject to plastic pricing, removed steel stampings and braze
operations, cheap 8- easyto manufature
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
close cost to steel when weight is reduced, easy to manufacture, can do
class "A" surface, No added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
Cheaper, work just as well
4.10.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
We chose most of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities for detail
evaluation as shown in Table 4.10-5.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 696
Table 4.10-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Fuel System Analysis
oT
3
10
10
_
—
10
—
| Subsystem
01
01
"o~f
™~™~
01
—
| Sub-Subsystem
00
01
~j£
™~™
03
—
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Fuel Tank & Lines
Fuel Tank Assy
Fuel Tank side -fuel pump ret. Ring
Fuel Tank Shield-Bottom
Fuel Distribution
Fuel Line Bracket
Fuel Pumping Module
Fuel Pumping Module Retaining Ring
Fuel filler neck
Fuel filler Cap housing
Fuel Cap
Hose Clamps
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
^^^^^—^^^^^^^——,
Remove ring and add POMto tankto make
plastic ring for new POM (fuel pumping
module retaining ring made out of POMto
screw onto)
Use Polyone foaming agent
Combo, plastic and PolyOne
make the cover out of plastic (POM)
Remove, and combine with POM style fuel
tank ring assy
Combo, plastic and PolyOne
Use Polyone foaming agent
Use Polyone foaming agent
Smallerwidth
4.10.1.5.1 Fuel pump and retaining ring Assembly
The solution chosen for the fuel pump and retaining ring assembly is to remove the
retaining ring that is molded into the tank and to add material so that threads could be
added to the tank side in place of the molded in steel ring. Also to make the top steel
retaining ring out of plastic as shown in Image 4.10-6.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 697
Image 4.10-6: Fuel Pump and Retaining Ring Assembly
(Source: A2macl)
4.10.1.5.2 Fuel Tank Shield
The solution chosen to be implemented for the fuel tank shield is to use PolyOne
foaming agent (Image 4.10-7).
®
Image 4.10-7: Plastic (HOPE) Fuel Tank
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.10.1.5.3 Fuel pumping module cap
The solution chosen to be implemented for the fuel pumping module cap is to make it out
of POM plastic as shown in Image 4.10-8. Instead of pinning the end of the strap, this
design locks the strap end without the need of a pin.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 698
Image 4.10-8: Fuel Pumping Module Cap (original Silverado, left; POM plastic, right)
(Source: FEV, Inc., left; andA2macl database, right)
4.10.1.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.10-6 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated. This
resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of 0.730 kg and a cost savings differential of
$2.36 for a system percentage of 3.23%.
Table 4.10-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results for Fuel Tank and
Lines Subsystem.
CO
CD"
3
10
10
10
10
10
Subsystem
01
~oT
_
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Description
Fuel Tank and Lines
Fuel Distribution
Fuel Filler (Refueling)
^£uelJarilvCon^rqMyiodu^
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
__
A
A
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(D
___
0.372
0.170
"™ao6o~1
0.731
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (2)
___
$1.30
$0.13
$0.00
$2.36
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
___
$3.50
$0.74
$0.00
$3.23
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
___
7.31%
18.59%
0.00%
3.23%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
___
0.02%
0.01%
0.00%
0.03%
(1) ••+•• = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 699
4.10.2 Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
4.10.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem is comprised of a charcoal/vapor canister and
the connecting lines between the fuel tank and the charcoal canister. Also included in this
is the vapor canister mounting bracket.
Image 4.10-9: The Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
(Source: A2macl)
Table 4.10-7 shows the two sub-subsystems that make up the Fuel Vapor Management
Subsystem. The most significant contributor to the mass of this subsystem is the fuel
vapor canister assembly. This includes the canister and the mounting bracket.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 700
Table 4.10-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Fuel Vapor Management subsystem.
(T>
•-=:
S2.
(0
3
10
10
10
Subsystem
02
02
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
Description
Fuel Vapor Management
Fuel Vapor Canister
Purge Valve Assy
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
2.828
0.914
3.742
26.340
2454
14.20%
0.15%
4.10.2.2 Silverado Baseline Technology
In the Chevrolet Silverado there is a steel-stamped mounting bracket for the vapor
canister to the frame of the vehicle. Today, some vapor canisters are mounted to the gas
tank or use a plastic mounting bracket.
4.10.2.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
4.10.2.3.1 Vapor Canister
Today's cleanest gasoline vehicles, certified to California's PZEV emission limits,
require near-zero evaporative emissions and include additional technologies such as
canister scrubbers to virtually eliminate bleed emissions from the carbon canisters during
periods of low purge. Some vehicles also incorporate carbon-based air-intake HC traps to
prevent engine breathing losses from escaping through the intake manifold and air
induction system (AIS) after the engine is shut off.
Today, viable emission control technologies exist to reduce fuel system-based HC
evaporative emissions from all types of spark-ignited engines including small handheld
equipment up to large spark-ignited (LSI) vehicles. Applications include marine and
recreational off-road vehicles. The major technologies that control permeation emissions
include:
• Fuel tanks made of low permeation polymers
• Multilayer co-extruded hoses
• Low permeation seals and gaskets
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 701
Technologies designed to control diurnal, hot soak, and refueling HC emissions include:
• Advanced carbon canisters
• High working capacity activated carbon
• Honeycomb carbons scrubbers
• Air induction system (AIS) HC traps
Demands on vehicle manufacturers to achieve higher fuel efficiency through the use of
smaller displacement, boosted engines and hybrid electric powertrains will create
challenging operating conditions for evaporative emission control technologies. The
lower purge volumes that result from smaller displacement engines or hybrid systems
under partial or full electric drive will require the development of specialty carbon
adsorbents and advanced canister designs to achieve the lowest evaporative emissions
demanded by future regulations. Gasoline vehicles in other parts of the world and SI off-
road equipment everywhere can benefit from much of the same technologies applied to
passenger vehicles in the U.S. This paper will describe the types of technologies that are
being used to meet the current and future evaporative emission regulations.[45]
4.10.2.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Brainstorming activities generated all of the ideas in Table 4.10-8. There are several
suppliers and websites supporting the use of other components within the Fuel System.
45 Source: Evaporative Emission Control Technologies for Gasoline Powered Vehicles December 2010,
Manufacturers of Emission Controls Association
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 702
Table 4.10-8: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for The Fuel Vapor
Management Subsystem.
Component/Assembly
Fuel Vapor Management
Vapor Canister
Vapor Canister
Vapor Canister
Vapor Canister
Fuel Vapor Canister support on
tame
Purge valve Dust filter support
Purge valve Dust filter support
Purge valve Dust filter support
Purge Line Bracket
Purge Line Bracket
Purge Line Bracket
Purge Line Bracket
Purge Line Bracket
Purge Line Bracket
Purge Line Bracket
Mass-Reduction Idea
Normalize to 201 3 Chevy Malibu Eco 2.4
Use Pol yone foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
Use Mu Cell gas process
Attach Vapor canister to fuel tank, remove
canister Support on frames on tank
Use Mu Cell gas process
Use Pol yone foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
Make out of Aluminium
Make out of Aluminium
Make out of Titanium
Use Pol yone foaming agent
Use 3M glass bubbles
Combo, plastic and PolyOne
Use Mu Cell gas process
Estimated Impact
15% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
21% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
30% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Less weight, cost less
can do class "A1 surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
canl do class "A1 surface, Added capital cost
Nostampings,noecoat,notooling
canl do class "A1 surface, Added capital cost
can do class "A1 surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
_Jia£tobej)remj^
Cost increase due to aluminum pricing, bigger due to added material for
same strength
Cost increase due to aluminum pricing, bigger due to added material for
same strength
Cost increase due to titanium pricing, harder to manufacture
can do class "A1 surface, No added capital cost
Density of glass is higher weight then foaming agent or gas products,
has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care, high cost
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto manufacture, can do
class "A" surface, No added capital cost
canl do class "A1 surface, Added capital cost
4.10.2.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
We chose most of the ideas generated from the brainstorming activities for detail
evaluation as shown in Table 4.10-9.
Table 4.10-9: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem.
O5
10
10
10
en
1
£
3
02
02
02
r«
ub-Subsy
£
00
01
02
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
FUG I V 3 por IVId ndci6 ITIG nt
,_J^ueWaj^^
Vapor Canister
Fuel Vapor Canister support on frame
Purge Valve Assy
Purge valve Dustfilter support
Purge Line Bracket
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail
Evaluation
Normalize to 201 3 Chevy Malibu Eco 2.4
Attach Vapor canister to fuel tank, remove
canister Support on frame& on tank
Use Polyone foaming agent
Combo, plastic and PolyOne
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 703
4.10.2.5.1 Fuel Vapor Canister
The solution chosen to be implemented for the fuel vapor canister is to normalize the
2012 Chevrolet Malibu to the 2010 Chevrolet Silverado, as shown in Image 4.10-10.
Image 4.10-10: Fuel Vapor Canisters
(Chevrolet Silverado, left; 2012 Chevrolet Malibu, right)
(Source: A2macl, database)
4.10.2.5.2 Fuel Vapor Canister Support on Frame
The solution(s) chosen to be implemented for the Fuel Vapor Canister Support on Frame
is to make it out of plastic and use the same design as the 2012 Chevrolet Malibu (Image
4.10-11).
Orig. Silverado 2012 Chevrolet Malibu
Image 4.10-11: Fuel Vapor Canister Support on Frame
(Chevrolet Silverado, left; 2012 Chevrolet Malibu, right)
(Source: FEV, Inc. andA2macl, database)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 704
4.10.2.6 Calculated Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
Table 4.10-10 shows the results of the mass reduction ideas that were evaluated. This
resulted in a subsystem overall mass savings of .876 kg and a cost savings differential of
$0.89 for a system percentage of 23.42%
Table 4.10-10: Calculated Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Fuel Vapor
Management Subsystem.
CO
•$.
CD"
3
10
10
10
CO
£Z
of
3
02
02
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
Description
Fuen/ajjHDMyiajT^i^^
Fuel Vapor Canister
_J^£geJi/aJ\«j|\sj^^
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
__
_JB_
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(D
0.700
_jpj_76_
0.876
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (2)
$0.96
_j>oa7_
$0.89
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$1.37
_J>038_
$1.02
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
24.75%
™li31%_
23.42%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"% "
0.03%
jicn%_
0.04%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
The amount of plastic thast was used went up due to replacing the steel fuel vapor
canister mounting bracket with a plastic one, and also replacing the two piece fuel pump
mounting bracket with a one piece plastic one.
4.10.3 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
The secondary mass reduction was obtained by an overall 20% mass reduction of the
vehicle and this affected the Fuel System by a 7.0% reduction.
4.10.3.1.1 Fuel reduction
The base Silverado holds 25.9 gallons of fuel; a reduction of 7.0% equals a 1.81 gallon
reduction in fuel. One gallon of fuel weighs 2.75 kg by 1.81 reduction in fuel equals 4.99
kg overall mass reduction in fuel. 1.48 gallons at an average $3.55 cost of a gallon of gas
equals $6.43 reduction without markup.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 705
4.10.3.1.2 Tank size reduction
The base Silverado holds 25.9 gallons of fuel and the tank weight is 10.6 kg, leaving a
ratio of .410. With the new tank size only holding 24.1 gallons the ratio reduces the
weight of the tank to 9.87 kg leaving an overall reduction of .743 kg.
.743 kg at $1.94 cost of HDPE equals $1.44 cost savings in plastic gas tank material
without markup.
The overall reduction of the tank size and the fuel makes the total reduction 5.73 kg and
$8.67 in cost with markup.
Table 4.10-11 shows the secondary mass reduction and what the total reduction would
be.
Table 4.10-11: Calculated Subsystem Mass and Secondary Reduction and Cost Impact Results for
Fuel System.
CO
l-i
U)-
nT
10
to
10
Subsystem
00
..........
02"
to
:=
Cj-
CO
^
cr
VI
•-=:
£-
tt
00
"do
00
Description
Fuel System
Fuel Tain and Lines Suosyste-
Fuel Vapor Management Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
0731
O76
1.61
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ,i)
5730
old
5.73
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" r>
6.46
0"88
7.34
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$2.36
jO'9
$3.25
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$"(2)
$8.67
sold
$8.67
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$11.03
sO'g"
$11.92
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
$171
$1.02
$1.62
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.26%
0.04%
0.30%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2} "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 706
4.10.4 Fuel System Material Analysis
The Material Categories for the Baseline Fuel System and for the Total Mass Reduced
Fuel System are shown in Figure 4.10-2. "Steel and Iron" decreased from 4.928 kg to
3.172 kg, and "Plastic" (due to the gas tank) decreased from 58.8% (15.489 kg) to 54.7%
(10.394 kg). As can be seen, materials listed under "Other" increased in percentage of
mass, from 19.0% to 25.8%.
Baseline Fuel System
Total Fuel System
Fuel System Material
Analysis
Fuel System Material
Analysis
18.7%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
58.8%
0.0%
19.0%
4.928
0.396
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.531
15.489
0.000
4.997
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Copper
9. Other
16.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
54.7%
0.0%
25.8%
3.172
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.531
10.394
0.000
4.906
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Copper
9. Other
100%
26.340 TOTAL
100%
19.003 TOTAL
Figure 4.10-2: Calculated Fuel System Baseline Material and Total Material Content
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 707
4.11 Steering System
The Chevrolet Silverado uses a hydraulic power steering system. Representative power
steering systems for cars and trucks supplement steering effort via an actuator (in the case
of this study a hydraulic cylinder), which is part of a servo system. These systems have a
direct mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the linkage that steers the
front wheels. This means that a power steering system failure (to augment effort) still
permits the vehicle to be steered using manual effort alone.
Other power steering systems (such as those in the largest off-road construction vehicles)
have no direct mechanical connection to the steering linkage; they use
electromechanically actuators. Systems of this kind, with no mechanical connection, are
sometimes called "drive-by-wire" or "steer-by-wire." In this context, "wire" refers to
electrical cables that carry power and data, not thin-wire-rope mechanical control cables.
In electric power steering systems (EPS), electric motors provide the assistance instead of
hydraulic systems. As with hydraulic types, power to the actuator (i.e., steering assist
motor) is controlled by the rest of the power steering control system.
Included in the Steering System are the Steering Gear, Power Steering, Steering
Equipment, and Steering Column Assembly Subsystems. The Steering Gear Subsystem is
the largest weight contributing subsystem at 13.89 kg (as shown in Table 4.11-1).
Table 4.11-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Steering System
tO
%
(D
11
11
11
11
11
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Ds=cf pier
Steering System
Steering Gear
Power Steering Pump
Power Steering Equipment
Steering Column Assy
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Sys:em &.
Subsysem
Mass
•kg'
13.893
5.439
1.011
12.171
32.514
2454
1.32%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 708
Image 4.11-1: Silverado Steering System
(Source: http://parts.nalleygmc. com/show Assembly. aspx?ukey_assembly=403923)
The Steering Gear, Steering Equipment, and Steering Column were used for mass
reduction considerations. The Steering Pump Subsystem offered the greatest weight
savings at 5.44 kg. (Table 4.11-2)
Table 4.11-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Steering System
Cfi
*-=:
UJ
rc>
3
11
11
11
11
11
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Steering System
Steering Gear
Power Steering Pump
Power Steering Equipment
Steering Column Assy
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"k9" r:
-1.467
5.439
1.011
3.474
8.457
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
"$" <2)
-$247.24
$40.69
$54.32
$4.76
-$147.46
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$168.57
$7.48
$53.73
$1.37
-$17.44
(Decrease)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
-10.56%
100.00%
100.00%
28.54%
26.01%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
-0.06%
0.22%
0.04%
0.14%
0.14%
(1} "•*-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 709
Baseline Steering System
Steering System Material
Analysis
2.9% 1.3% 2.0%
82.1%
0.0%
11.6%
2.9%
0.0%
1.3%
2.0%
0.0%
0.1%
26.688
0.000
3.761
0.959
0.000
0.408
0.662
0.000
0.036
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
100%
32.514 TOTAL
Figure 4.11-1: Calculated material content for the Steering System base BOM
4.11.1 Steering Gear Subsystem
4.11.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table 4.11-3, included in the Steering System subsystems is the Steering
Gear. The Silverado used in this study contained rack and pinion steering mechanisms, in
which the steering wheel turns the pinion gear. The pinion moves the rack, which is a
linear gear that meshes with the pinion, converting circular motion into linear motion
along the transverse axis of the truck (i.e., side-to-side motion).
The rack and pinion design, as shown in Image 4.11-2, has the advantages of a large
degree of feedback and direct steering "feel." A disadvantage is that it is not adjustable,
so that when it does wear and develop lash, the only remedy is replacement. Power
steering helps the driver steer by directing some power to assist in swiveling the steered
road wheels about their steering axis. The assist cylinder is built around the rack in this
vehicle.
Image 4.11-2: Silverado Rack and Pinion Steering Gear
(Source: A2macl)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 710
Table 4.11-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for Steering Gear Subsystem
O3
f
(D
11
11
ff>
C
CT
fj>
t
(D
01
01
C/3
C
CT
00
c
cr
a?
•£
(D
00
01
Description
Steering Gear Sub-System
Steering Gear
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
'kg'
13.893
13.893
2454
0.57%
4.11.1.2 Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado uses a conventional hydraulic steering gear setup.
4.11.1.3
Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The industry trend is electric assist in most vehicles and trucks with few exceptions.
Electric power steering (EPS) is more efficient than the hydraulic power steering, since
the electric power steering motor provides assistance only when the steering wheel is
turned, whereas the hydraulic pump must run constantly. In EPS, the amount of
assistance is easily tunable to the vehicle type, road speed, and even driver preference. In
addition, electrical assistance is not lost when the engine fails or stalls, whereas hydraulic
assistance stops working if the engine stops, making the steering doubly heavy as the
driver must now turn not only the very heavy steering — without any help — but also the
power-assistance system itself.
For the EPS-assisted rack-and-pinion to be a genuine success before it is eventually
replaced by a true steer-by-wire systems, it needs to match what is considered the
ultimate achievement in this car-design discipline: Provide an honest feel and feedback
that gives drivers security in every condition of driving.
Autonomous driving is the next big step toward the ultimate goal of total accident
avoidance. Vehicle technologies are quickly evolving, providing drivers with assistance
in difficult traffic situations in traffic, improving highway and urban road safety, reducing
fuel consumption and exhaust emissions, and all the while delivering a high degree of
driving comfort. Autonomous cars have already been proven in normal traffic conditions,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 711
and there are valuable opinions as well about opening dedicated lanes or corridors for
these vehicles.
4.11.1.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Table 4.11-4 shows weight reductions taken for the Steering Gear Subsystem.
Table 4.11-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Steering Gear
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Steel Knuckle
Steel Knuckle
Steel Tie Rod End
Steel Tie Rod End
Steel Tie Rod Link
Steel Tie Rod Link
Steering Gear
Mass-Reduction Idea
Replace with Aluminum
Replace with Manesium
Replace with Aluminum
Replace with Manesium
Replace with Aluminum
Replace with Manesium
Repace Hydraulic with Electric
Estimated Impact
20% weight save
30% weight save
20% weight save
30% weight save
20% weight save
30% weight save
10% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
Low risk moderate
cost increase
Some risk moderate
coat increase
Low risk moderate
cost increase
Some risk moderate
coat increase
Low risk moderate
cost increase
Some risk moderate
coat increase
No risk cost increase
Image 4.11-3: Silverado Steering Knuckle, Link, Tie Rod, and Steering Gear
(Source: A2macl)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 712
4.11.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Another weight reduction opportunity for the subsystem steering gear was to shorten the
tie rod ends and lengthen the threaded part of the tie rod ball joint. The current Chrysler
minivan has a shorter tie rod end and it was used as a basis for this analysis, as detailed in
Table 4.11-5. Using this, a 1%, 0.123 kg savings can result. Material selection of
magnesium for some of the components also proved to be a means of weight reduction.
Table 4.11-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Steering Gear Subsystem
CO
><
2-
oT
3
11
11
11
11
11
Subsyste
3
01
01
01
01
01
CO
ub-Subsys
S"
3
00
01
02
03
04
Description
Steering System
Steering Gear
Knuckle
Tie rod end
Tie rod link
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected
for Detail Evaluation
Replaced with electric unit
Replace Steel Casting with Mg
AJ62 (Mg-AI-Sr)
Replace Steel Casting with Mg
AJ62 (Mg-AI-Sr)
Replace Steel Bar with Mg AJ62
(Mg-AI-Sr)
4.11.1.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
Table 4.11-6 shows the weight and cost reductions per Steering Gear Sub-subsystems.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 713
Table 4.11-6: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Steering Gear Sub-
Subsystem.
•$
ffi"
11
J°L
CO
I
ffi-
3
01
J°L
in
9"
CO
£Z
cr
CD"
00
.51.
Description
Steering Gear Sub-System
__Steering_Gear
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea Level
Select
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
_-1J67_
-1.467
(Increase)
Cost Impact
II(MI
* (2)
Ji>247.2£
-$247.24
(Increase)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
JM68.57_
$168.57
(Decrease)
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
"%"
ll°J6%_
-10.56%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
_-OL06%_
-0.06%
(1) ••+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.11.2 Power Steering Subsystem
4.11.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
As shown in Table 4.11-7, included in the Power Steering Subsystem is the Power
Steering Electronic Controls Sub-subsystem.
Table 4.11-7: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Power Steering Subsystem
C/3
f
(D
11
11
Subsystem
02
02
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
Description
Power Steering Pump
Power Steering Pump
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Sys:emi
Subsystem
Mass
'kg'
5.439
5.439
2454
0.22%
4.11.2.2
Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado uses an industry standard for its hydraulic pump in this system. It has a
cast iron pump body with a steel oil reservoir (Image 4.11-4).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 714
Image 4.11-4: Silverado Hydraulic Pump and Reservoir
(Source: A2macl)
4.11.2.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
In this subsystem, the selection of an electrically assisted power steering system (EPS) is
the latest technological trend. Replacing hydraulic assist with a computer-controlled
electric motor seemed like a reasonable idea. Someday every car control will be by-wire;
today's EPS appears to be a step in that direction. In the past decade of driving EPS-
equipped cars, motorists found them to be lacking in feel and poorly tuned in comparison
with the hydraulic-assist setups that have benefited from more than a half-century
of development.
4.11.2.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
For the Steering Pump Subsystem, the ideas in Table 4.11-8 were reviewed.
Table 4.11-8: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially considered for the Steering Pump
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Hydraulic Pump
Bracket
Bolts, Nuts & Washers
Mass-Reduction Idea
eliiminate
eliiminate
eliiminate
Estimated Impact
100% weight save
100% weight save
100% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
no risk
no risk
no risk
4.11.2.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The weight reduction solution for this subsystem was to eliminate the pump, steel
mounting brackets, and all the bolts, nuts, and washers. Table 4.11-9 shows using this
resulted in a 100%, or a 5.44 kg weight savings.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 715
Table 4.11-9: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Power Steering Subsystem
CO
oT
11
11
Subsyste
3
02
02
CO
ub-Subsys
oT
3
00
01
Description
Power Steering Pump
Power Steering Pump
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected
for Detail Evaluation
Replaced with electric unit
4.11.2.6 Mass reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
Table 4.11-10 shows the weight and cost reductions for the Power Steering Pump Sub-
subsystem.
Table 4.11-10: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Power Steering
Pump Sub-Subsystem.
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea Level
Selec
Mass
Reduaon
Cost Impact
'$•(2)
Average
Cos?
Kfcgram
S/kg
Sub-
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
b'S":
Reduoon
Vehicle
N'33=
Reducjon
11
02
00
Power Steering Pump
10
02
01
5.439
$40.69
$7.48
100%
0.22%
5.439
(Decrease)
$40.69
(Decrease)
$7.48
(Decrease)
100.00%
0.22%
(1) 'V' = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.11.3 Steering Equipment Subsystem
4.11.3.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.11-11 shows that included in the Power Steering Equipment Subsystem are the
Power Steering Tube Assembly and Heat Exchange Assembly Sub-subsystems.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 716
Table 4.11-11: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Power Steering Equipment Subsystem
£/3
1
(D
11
11
11
Subsystem
03
03
03
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
Description
Power Steering Equipment
Power Steering Tube Assembly
Heat Exchange Assy
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Systems
Subsystem
Mass
'kg'
0.650
0.361
1.011
2454
0.04%
4.11.3.2 Chevrolet Silverado Subsystem Technology
The Silverado hydraulic system is pictured in
Image 4.11-5. The hydraulic tubes circulate the hydraulic pressure from the pump to the
steering gear assist cylinder. The heat exchanger keeps the hydraulic oil at optimum
running temperature for the system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 717
Image 4.11-5: Silverado Hydraulic Equipment
(Source: http://parts.nalleygmc. com/show Assembly. aspx?ukey_assembly=403923)
4.11.3.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Industry mass reduction trends regarding the power steering system primarily eliminate
the hydraulic system and go with electric equipment.
4.11.3.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
Weight deductions were taken from the Steering Equipment Assembly Sub-subsystem, as
shown in Table 4.11-12.
Table 4.11-12: Summary of Mass Reduction concepts initially considered for the Steering
Equipment Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Hydraulic Tubes
Heat Exchanger
Bolts, Nuts & Washers
Mass-Reduction Idea
eliiminate
eliiminate
eliiminate
Estimated Impact
100% weight save
100% weight save
100% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
no risk
no risk
no risk
4.11.3.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The weight reductions that were used for the Steering Equipment Subsystem are listed in
Table 4.11-13.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 718
Table 4.11-13: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Power Steering Equipment Subsystem
o>
CD"
3
11
11
11
CO
c
8"
-<
2-
oT
3
03
03
03
CO
1
c
sr
><
?
3
00
01
02
Description
Power Steering Equipment
Power Steering Tube Assembly
Heat Exchange Assy
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected
for Detail Evaluation
Replaced with electric unit
Replaced with electric unit
4.11.3.6 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates
Table 4.11-14 shows a 5%, 1.15 kg total weight reduction for the sub-subsystem.
Table 4.11-14: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for Power Steering
Equipment Subsystem.
CO
1
11
10
10
CO
1
1
(D
03
"03"
03
Sub- Subsystem
00
O'l"
02
Descripfcn
Power Steering Equipment
Power Steering tube Assembly
Heat Exchange Assy
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea Level
See-
A
Mass
Reducxm
'k9' -
Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reducxn
•%•
100%
100%
100.00%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduoon
•%•
0".03%"""
0.01%
0.01%
(1} "••-'' = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.11.4 Steering Column Subsystem
4.11.4.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Included in the Steering Column Subsystem are the Steering Column (and mounting
brackets), Steering Wheel, and Column Cowl Sub-subsystems (Table 4.11-15).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 719
Table 4.11-15: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Steering Column Assembly Subsystem
CO
t
(D
11
11
11
11
Subsystem
04
04
04
04
Sub- Subsystem
00
01
02
03
DeseripSon
Steering Column Assembly
Steering column assy
Steering wheel assy
Column Cowl
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Syssem&
Subsystem
Mass
'kg'
10.178
1.781
0.212
12.171
2454
0.50%
4.11.4.2 Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Silverado has used the same column system for more than 10 years. There are
opportunities in this subsystem that will allow for mass reduction without jeopardizing
the system's safety aspects. Material selection will provide the advantage to produce
tomorrow's technology in advanced plastics, magnesium, and composites.
Image 4.11-6: Silverado Steering Column
(Source: http://parts.nalleygmc. com/show Assembly. aspx?ukey_assembly=403923)
4.11.4.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The 2009 Ford F-150 steering column is more than 60% magnesium based on volume,
and represents a more than 40% weight savings over the prior model steering column.
The steering column weight savings was realized through the integration of several
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 720
components, such as brackets that must be attached by welding or bolting, into a single
component. Specifically, the steel main tube and several brackets that were previously
welded together, as well as an aluminum support casting that was bolted on, were
integrated into a single magnesium die casting. Utilizing diecast magnesium also
facilitated the integration of optional construction for the engineered steering column
energy absorption features. This allowed Ford and Delphi Steering engineers to optimize
the steering column's contribution to driver-side vehicle crash safety.
BAG Technologies Ltd.'s U.S. Patented carbon fiber driveshaft design is a mechanically
integrated one-piece design in which the aluminum yokes are filament wound into the
shaft. Wet composite material sinks into knurling on each yoke and encapsulates it during
the manufacturing process. Therefore, each yoke is permanently locked into the shaft
when the epoxy composite is cured. This design does not rely on adhesives to transfer the
torsional load from the aluminum yoke to the carbon fiber composite. Independent
laboratory tests have revealed BAC's carbon fiber driveshaft has significantly higher
torsional strength and less weight over popular aluminum shafts and all other carbon
composite driveshafts. This is a great application for the Silverado steering shafts.
Lexan EXL glass-filled polycarbonate-siloxane copolymer resin provides excellent
stiffness and a high degree of impact over a very wide temperature range. SABIC
Innovative Plastics has developed two designs: a two-part injection molded design with a
leather wrap as a high-end solution and a one-piece injection-molded armature with a
polyurethane over-molding. Both are attached to the steering column with a small metal
hub. They have been shown to cut system costs by up to 20% and reduce mass by up to
40% compared to a magnesium or aluminum alloy steering wheel.
Downsizing and light weighting this system is just the beginning. By 2025 there will be
vehicles in the market that will have no direct linkage between the wheel and the electric
steering gear.
4.11.4.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
For the subsystem steering column, the ideas shown in Table 4.11-16 were reviewed.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 721
Table 4.11-16: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially considered for the Steering System
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Shaft Mounting Tube
Shaft Mounting Tube
Shaft Mounting Tube
Column Spindle
Column Spindle
Column Spindle
Steering Wheel
Steering Wheel
Steering Wheel
Mass-Reduction Idea
Steel tube to Aluminum Casting
Steel tube to Magnesium
Casting
Steel tube to CCF Casting
Steel bar to Aluminum
Steel Bar to Magnesium
Steel bar to CCF
Magnesium to Plastic
Magnesium to MMC
Magnesium to CCF
Estimated Impact
50% weight save
60% weight save
70% weight save
50% weight save
60% weight save
70% weight save
25% weight save
10% weight save
35% weight save
Risks & Trade-offs
and/or Benefits
no risk minimum cost
impact
low risk no cost
impact
engineered solution no
cost impact
no risk minimum cost
impact
low risk no cost
impact
engineered solution no
cost impact
no risk minimum cost
impact
low risk no cost
impact
engineered solution no
cost impact
4.11.4.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The weight reductions that were used for the Steering Column Subsystem are listed in
Table 4.11-17.
Table 4.11-17: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Steering Column Subsystem
CO
*<
00^
CD"
-I
11
11
11
11
CO
c
sr
*<
en
CD
3
04
04
04
04
CO
% v>
>< £=
cn cr
CD
3
00
01
02
03
Description
Steering Column Assembly
Steering column assy
Steering Wheel Assy
Steering Column Cowl
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected
for Detail Evaluation
Replace Steel with Magnesiun
Replace Magnesium with Plastic
Replace with PolyOne
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 722
Image 4.11-7: Steering Column Assembly, Steering Wheel Assembly, and Steering Column Cowl
(Source: A2macl, except lower right FEV, Inc.)
Table 4.12 2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Steering Column System
f
CD
11
10
10
10
C/D
cr
B9
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 723
4.11.5 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
Table 4.11-18 is a summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each
sub-subsystem evaluated. This analysis recorded a system mass reduction of 8.46 kg
(26.0%) at a cost increase of $147.46 ($17.44 per kg). The contribution of the steering
system to the overall vehicle mass reduction is 0.35%. There are no compounding mass
reductions for this system.
Table 4.11-18: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Estimates for the Steering
Equipment Subsystem
CO
*<
'2*
fD
3
11
11
_11
11
11
Subsystem
00
01
•-Q2
03
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Steering System
Steering Gear
Power Steering Pump
Power Steering Equipment
Steering Column Assy
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"
-1.47
~SM
1.01
3.47
8.46
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" {i)
0.00
olo
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (D
-1.47
5.44
1.01
3.47
8.46
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" <2>
4247.24
$40.69
$54.32
$4.76
-$147.46
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" <2>
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$247.24
$40.69
$54.32
$4.76
-$147.46
(Increase)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$168.57
$7.48
$53.73
$1.37
-$17.44
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
-0.06%
0.22%
0.04%
0.14%
0.34%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2( "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
Secondary mass reduction was obtained by an overall 20% mass reduction of the vehicle
and this affected some of the subsystems by a 5.0% to 7.0% reduction.
The Steering System considerations are that secondary mass reduction would not be
viable. The assumed overall reduction of 20% on the total vehicle will not be equally
distributed over the truck. That being said, a reduction of 10% over the front wheels will
not allow the opportunity to remove more mass out of the system. We are confident with
the direction that was taken on this system to improve it, reduce mass and removing more
mass would compromise its integrity.
4.11.6 Steering System Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Steering System and for the light weighted and
compounded Transmission System is provided in Figure 4.11-2. The "Steel & Iron"
content category was reduced by almost 12%, while "Aluminum" and "Plastic" increased
by 10.6% and 0.6%, respectively.
-------
Baseline Steering System
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 724
Total Steering System
Steering System Material
Analysis
2.9% 1.3% 2.0%
Steering System Material
Analysis
* Bl.StEel&l
• 4. Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
82.1%
0.0%
11.6%
2.9%
0.0%
1.3%
2.0%
0.0%
0.1%
26.688
0.000
3.761
0.959
0.000
0.408
0.662
0.000
0.036
Material Categories:
1. Steel &lron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
70.2%
0.0%
22.2%
3.2%
0.0%
1.7%
2.6%
0.0%
0.1%
16.881
0.000
5.337
0.767
0.000
0.408
0.628
0.000
0.036
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
100%
32.514 TOTAL
100%
24.058 TOTAL
Figure 4.11-2: Calculated Steering System Baseline Material and Total Material Content
4.12 Climate Control System
The 2011 Chevrolet Silverado passenger cabin climate control application is
representative of the typical current industry standard. The system provides comfort by
maintaining desired cabin climate for the occupants. The level is selected using the
control module, normally mounted in the instrument panel. The control system may vary
slightly as the vehicle trim level changes.
The baseline mass breakdown of the Climate Control System into the four subsystems is
displayed in Table 4.12-1. The Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem accounts for
more than 70% of the system mass.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 725
Table 4.12-1: Baseline for Climate Control System
C/)
>•<
IJ)
(D
3
12
12
12
12
12
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Climate Control System
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystemm
Heating / Defrosting Subsystem
Refrigeration / Air Conditioning Subsystem
Controls Subsystem
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass "kg"
14.881
0.293
4.741
0.394
20.309
2454
0.83%
Table 4.12-2 shows a total mass reduction of 1.94 kg from the entire Climate Control
System with a cost saving of $14.71. The Air Handling/Body Ventilation Subsystem
contributed all of the mass reduction for the Climate Control System. There were no mass
reduction ideas applied to the Heating/Defrosting Subsystem, Refrigeration/Air
Conditioning Subsystem, or the Controls Subsystem.
Table 4.12-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Climate Control System
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 726
Climate Control System
Material Analysis
• 1. Steel & Iron
12. H.S. Steel
• 3. Aluminum
• 4. Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
6.Rubber
17. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
0.9%
0.0%
32.9%
0.0%
0.0%
10.1%
40.9%
0.0%
15.2%
Material Categories:
0.182 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
6.686 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
2.052 6. Rubber
8.310 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Glass
3.079 9. Other
100%
20.309 TOTAL
Figure 4.12-1: Calculated Climate Control System Baseline Material
The pie chart in Figure 4.12-1 details the material composition of the Climate Control
Subsystem. It highlights the mass reduction achievement of 1.94 kg. The reduction effort
is in the use of a newer amalgamation of plastic resins which, when processed, result in
mass reduction.
4.12.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Climate Control System is primarily for occupant comfort while in the vehicle. It
warms the cabin when the outside weather is cool, and cools the cabin when the outside
weather is warm. It provides defrosting capabilities during the winter months to clear the
windshield of any ice. It also removes moisture from the cabin which may cause the
windows to "fog" when there is high humidity. The system receives outside air and
conditions it according to the selected occupant comfort level. There is a heating coil
within the main HVAC unit which circulates warm liquid from the engine cooling system
through a series of hoses and piping connections. There is a cooling coil as well, chilled
by a cooling agent circulated by the air conditioning compressor.
4.12.1.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Climate Control System Technology
The Climate Control System has four different subsystems as shown in Table 4.12-1.
The majority of the system mass (73%) is contained within the Air Handling/Body
Ventilation Subsystem. The main HVAC unit is the primary contributor to mass in this
subsystem (81%).
The main HVAC unit contains all of the blower motors, air directional flaps and the
motors which control these features. Additionally this unit contains the mass for the
aluminum main heating coil and the aluminum main cooling coil in the assembled state.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 727
In breaking this mass down, the Air Distribution Duct Components Sub-subsystem,
which contains air distribution duct work and mounting hardware accounts for 2.89 kg,
19.4% of the total subsystem mass. The main HVAC Unit weighs in 11.996 kg (80.6% of
the total subsystem mass), and 59.1% of the entire Climate Control Subsystem.
4.12.2 Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystem
4.12.2.1 Subsystem Content Overview
Table 4.12-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-Subsystem for the Air Handling / Body Ventilation
Subsystem Components Sub Subsystem
Cfl
'-=:
3
12
12
12
12
Subsystem
01
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
02
03
04
Description
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystem
Air Distribution Duct Components
Body Air Outlets
HVAC Main Unit
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to System Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle Mass =
System/
Subsystem
Mass "kg"
2.881
0.000
11.996
14.877
20.309
2454
73.25%
0.83%
4.12.2.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Climate Control Subsystem Technology
The Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystem had a total mass of 14.881 kg. This mass
does include the heating and air conditioning coils mounted in the main HVAC Unit. It
also includes the motors and mounting hardware for all of the flap and gates which
control the distribution of the conditioned cabin air. There was no mass reduction
generated from these included components.
The heart of the Climate Control System is the main HVAC Unit and it provides 81% of
the subsystem base mass. Image 4.12-1 is the main HVAC Unit.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 728
Image 4.12-1: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado Main HVAC Unit
(Source: FEV, Inc. photo)
The remainder of Chevrolet Silverado Climate Control System mass is duct work and
mechanical structures. These are predominantly made from high density polyethylene
(HDPE). The process is a very common industry process for these types of components.
The strategy for mass reduction for the Chevrolet Silverado is to use replacement
materials which meet the OEM climate control requirements for occupant comfort and
operation safety.
Some of the components of the Climate Control System are structural in nature. In the
main HVAC Unit there is a large amount of mechanical devices which require structural
support to operate in the manner intended. In the Main HVAC Unit there are flaps used to
direct the flow of conditioned air to various cabin locations. These are motor driven in
most cases and therefore require additional structural integrity to properly support these
motors and maintain proper system operation.
The main HVAC Unit also houses the heating coil and the cooling coil, and these coils
require structural stability of the mounting component to maintain intended operational
integrity.
4.12.2.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
The field of plastics is continuously expanding the products they are creating as well as
the applications they feel can transition from alternate products to plastics. Every day a
new material is created, a new application developed, and a new customer will arrive on
the scene looking for a technological advantage in his market segment.
The structural needs of Climate Control components allow for a wide range of change.
With most of the components of the Climate Control System being hidden from view,
they do not have to be appealing to the eye: they just have to function efficiently. For
these reasons, a low-cost material is usually the fabric of choice everything else being
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 729
equal. New processes are being developed to allow for lower costs, faster rates of
production, and less material being used.
Our research looked at replacement materials which would meet the requirements of
OEMs and reduce overall mass. Mucell processed foam was one of the products
investigated, and Azote from Zotefoam, Inc. was another.
The Mucell process imparts an approximate 10% mass reduction opportunity on the
component compared to HDPE types of traditional materials. The Zotefoam, Inc. process
can yield a 50% - 80% mass reduction based on the product and application.
Mucell®
The MuCell process can be used to produce components of less mass through a density
change of the material which the MuCell process creates. The Mucell process has the
opportunity to produce components which are 10-30% less in mass, yet do not exhibit
any loss of mechanical properties.
Mass reduction is just one of the advantages the Mucell process provides. The mass
reduction is generated by the creation of a foam-like product. The Mucell process injects
a tightly controlled gas into the mold. Improved quality characteristics are realized due to
the uniform stress patterns related to molding of the component.
In concert with the quality improvements there is an inherent productivity improvement
directly linked to the efficiencies of the process gains realized as a result of the new
process. The increased productivity of 20-30% per machine is a major gain. Another
opportunity for the manufacturing process is to use the less dense material and employ
lower tonnage machines to make the same part. This change will positively affect the cost
of the components.
Zotefoam, Inc. - Azote
For applications which do not require the structural stability of the Mucell replacement
there is a product, Azote, from Zotefoams, Inc. Zotefoams has a unique manufacturing
process for mass reduction of current plastic products. This product is currently used in
climate control air ducts among other applications. The advantage this material has over
other products is lower density and variety of applications which can use this due to the
wide density numbers it can support.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 730
Image 4.12-2: Example of a Zotefoam under IP air duct
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Depending on the grade, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) Zotefoam can have a density
range between 0.03 to - .115 g/cm3. The density of regular HDPE is .95 g/cm3. In
instances where the base product is a standard density HDPE and a change to the
Zotefoam process was introduced, the realized mass reduction would easily be 75% mass
reduction.
Image 4.12-3: Close up view of the Zotefoam under IP Air Duct
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The process for this product is known as twin sheet molding. The use of heat and air
pressure is integral to the successful application of the technology.
The process is one sheet atop another. The sheets are introduced to the mold fixture, heat
is applied, closely followed by air pressure allowing the individual sheets to form
themselves into the mold tooling. Once the forming process is completed the edges of the
form are welded together, forming a one-piece molded component.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 731
Image 4.12-4: Toyota Venza IP Air Duct (HOPE)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.12-5: Chevrolet Silverado IP Air Duct (HOPE)
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.12.3 Summary of Mass reduction Concepts Considered
4.12.3.1
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.12-4 Illustrates the concepts which were reviewed and applied to proper
applications for mass reduction opportunities in the Climate Control System.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 732
Table 4.12-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered for the Climate Control System
Component / Assembly
HVAC Ducts
Main HVAC Unit
Housings and Flaps
Mass- Reduction Idea
Zotefoams' Azote Foam
Mucell Process
Estimated Impact
50% - 80%
Mass- Reduction
10% Mass-Reduction
Risks & Trade-Offs and/or Benefits
Moderate cost save depending on application.
Currently used for passenger air ducts on the
Boeing 787 Dream Liner.
Low Cost.
Mucell used in high volume volume
production applications, similar to the
Silverado Climate Control System, for many
OEMS.
4.12.3.2
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Table 4.12-5 displays the mass reduction ideas which were selected for the Climate
Control System.
Table 4.12-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Climate Control System
O3
at
ST
3
12
12
12
12
03
c
CT
at
m
5T
00
01
01
01
03
c
CT
03
§r
en
oT
3
00
00
02
04
Description
Climate Control System
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystemm
Air Distribution Duct Components (Duct Manifolds)
HVAC Main Unit
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
Zotefoam's Azote Material and process to replace HOPE blow
molded Duct Manifolds.
MuCell process applied to applicable housings and flaps.
4.12.4 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
The Climate Control Subsystem contributed a system mass reduction of 1.94 kg, (9.55%).
This mass reduction provided a vehicle cost saving of $14.71, which equated to $7.59 per
kg. The overall vehicle mass reduction contribution is 0.08%. Table 4.12-6 is a summary
of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for each vehicle subsystem evaluated.
There are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 733
4.12.4.1 Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact
Table 4.12-6 presents the mass and cost results for the lightweighting effort per system.
Table 4.12-6: System Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Climate Control System
System
12
12
•j2'
12
12
Subsystem
00
01
_
03
04
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
"oo
00
00
Description
Climate Control System
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystemm
Heating / Defrosting Subsystem
Refrigeration / Air Conditioning Subsystem
Controls Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg"(D
1.94
bib
0.00
0.00
1.94
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg"(D
0.00
bio
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg"(D
1.94
bib
0.00
0.00
1.94
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
$14.71
$blo
$0.00
$0.00
$14.71
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$0.00
$o."o"b
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
$14.71
$"b."o"b
$0.00
$0.00
$14.71
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
I/kg"
$7.59
$blb
$0.00
$0.00
$7.59
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.08%
b'."bb%
0.00%
0.00%
0.081'i
(1) "+" = mass decrease,"-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease,"-" = cost increase
Table 4.12-6 shows the total mass reduction in the Climate Control System to be 1.94 kg
with an associated cost savings of $14.71. This mass reduction was all contained in the
Air Handling / Body Ventilation Subsystem.
4.12.5 Climate Control System Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Climate Control System and for the light weighted
and compounded Transmission System is provided in Figure 4.12-2. The "Plastic"
content category was reduced by 6.2%, while "Aluminum" and "Rubber" increased by
3.5% and 1.1%, respectively.
-------
Baseline Climate Control System
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 734
Total Climate Control System
Climate Control System
Material Analysis
Climate Control System
Material Analysis
0.0%
• 1. Steel & Iron
ml. H.S. Seel
• 3. Aluminum
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
32.9%
0.0%
0.0%
10.1%
40.9%
0.0%
15.2%
Material Categories:
0.182 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
6.686 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. FoanVCarpet
2.052 6. Rubber
8.310 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Glass
3.079 9. Other
Material Categories:
1.0%
0.0%
36.4%
0.0%
0.0%
11.2%
34.7%
0.0%
16.8%
0.182
0.000
6.686
0.000
0.000
2.052
6.371
0.000
3.080
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
100%
20.309 TOTAL
100%
18.370 TOTAL
Figure 4.12-2: Calculated Climate Control System Baseline Material and Total Material Content
Percentage variance from Base BOM to New BOM are directly attributed to the change
in the plastic material mass which affects all of the remaining assembly components.
4.13 Info, Gage, and Warning Device Systems
The Info, Gage, and Warning Device System includes two subsystems: Driver
Information Module (instrument cluster) and Traffic Horns (Electric). The Instrument
Cluster and Horn Subsystems weight are presented in Table 4.13-1, which shows the
Instrument Cluster Subsystem is the greatest weight contributor in this system. Note: the
horn subsystem includes the horn mechanism itself and not the components used to
activate the horn in the steering wheel, which are in the Steering Subsystem.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 735
Table 4.13-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for Info, Gage and Warning Device System
fa
t
CD
13
13
13
Subsystem
00
01
02
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
Descriptor!
info, Gage and Warning system
Driver Information Module (Instrument Cluster)
Traffic Horns (Electric)
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Sys:em&
Subsystem
Mass
Titf
1.:=:
:.5is
1.578
2454
0.06%
Table 4.13-2 shows, the weight reduction results that were applied to the Info, Gage and
Warning System. The ideas reduced the system weight by 0.248 kg which is a 15.72%
system mass reduction.
Table 4.13-2: Preliminary Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Info, Gage, and Warning
Device System
f
of
3
13
13
13
13
Subsystem
01
01
02
02
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
01
02
Description
lnfo,Gage and Warning system
Drivers Info Center
Traffic Horn Assembly - LH
,Jljc[ffi£jHorrij^^
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea
Level
Select
A
A
A
A
Mass
Reduction
"kg" (1)
0.064
0.092
0.092
0.248
(Decrease)
Cost Impact
"$" (2)
$0.49
$0.09
$0.09
$0.66
(Decrease)
Average
Cost/
Kilogram
$/kg
$7.67
$0.93
$0.93
$2.66
(Decrease)
Sub-Subs./
Sub-Subs.
Mass
Reduction
5.99%
35.64%
35.64%
15.72%
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 736
Info, Gage & Warning
System Material Analysis s
21.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
71.6%
0.0%
7.4%
0.332
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.130
0.000
0.116
Material Categories
1. Steel Slron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/ Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Copper
9. Other
100%
1.578 TOTAL
Figure 4.13-1: Calculated material content for the Info, Gage, and Warning Device System Base
BOM
4.13.1 Instrument Cluster Subsystem
4.13.1.1 Subsystem Content Overview
The Driver's Info Center Sub-subsystem is within the Driver Information Module
(instrument cluster) Subsystem. The Traffic Horn Assembly (LH) and (RH) Sub-
subsystems are part of the Traffic Horn (Electric) Subsystem.
Image 4.13-1: Driver Information Module (instrument cluster)
(Source: Google Images)
As seen in Table 4.13-3, the most significant contributor to the mass of the Info, Gage,
and Warning subsystems 1.06 kg is the Driver's Info Center. This includes the cluster
mask assembly, the cluster rear housing and the display housing.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 737
Table 4.13-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystems
GO
^<
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 738
Table 4.13-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially considered for the Info, Gage and
Warning System
Component/Assembly
Mass-Reduction Idea
IP Cluster
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Rear Housing
Cluster Rear Housing
Cluster Rear Housing
Display Housing
Display Housing
Display Housing
Traffic Horn
Outer plastic cover
Outer plastic cover
Outer plastic cover
Use MuCellgas
process
Use Polyone foaming
agent
UseSMglass bubbles
Use MuCellgas
Use Polyone foaming
agent
UseSMglass bubbles
Use MuCellgas
process
Use Polyone foaming
agent
UseSMglass bubbles
Use MuCellgas
process
Use Polyone foaming
UseSMglass bubbles
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Mounting brkt
Use MuCellgas
process^
Use Polyone foaming
agent
UseSMglass bubbles
Alumunim
Plastic
Use MuCellgas
process
Use Polyone foaming
agent
UseSMglass bubbles
Combo, plastic and
MuCell
Combo, plastic and
PolyOne
Estimated Impact
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
8.55% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care.
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care.
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care.
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care.
45% Mass Reduction
79% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
High cost, hard to manufacture
10% Mass Reduction
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
6% Mass Reduction Has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care.
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto
81% Mass Reduction manufacture, can't do class "A" surface, Added capital
cost
81% Mass Reduction
79% Mass Reduction
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto
manufacture, can do class "A" surface, No added capital
cost
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto
manufacture, Has to be premixed with plastic resin,
Handle with care.
10% Mass Reduction \ can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
10% Mass Reduction can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
6% Mass Reduction
Has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care.
45% Mass Reduction
High cost, hard to manufacture
79% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
10% Mass Reduction
6% Mass Reduction
81% Mass Reduction
81% Mass Reduction
Combo, plastic and 3M
glass bubbles
79% Mass Reduction
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto
can't do class "A" surface, Added capital cost
can do class "A" surface, No added capital cost
Has to be premixed with plastic resin, Handle with care.
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto
manufacture, can't do class "A" surface, Added capital
cost
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto
manufacture, can do class "A" surface, No added capital
cost
close costto steel when weight is reduced, easyto
manufacture, Has to be premixed with plastic resin,
Handle with care.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 739
4.13.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
PolyOne was selected for cost analysis on the cluster mask assembly, the cluster rear
housing and the display housing parts in this subsystem. PolyOne was applied to parts
that the customer can and cannot see. The component, driver information center screen
was not applicable for PolyOne. The ideas were applied to the components shown in
Table 4.13-5
Table 4.13-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for the Info, Gage and Warning System
f
5T
13
13
13
13
Subsystem
00
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
01
02
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Info, Gage and Warning system
Drivers Info Center
Cluster Mask Assy
Cluster Rear Housing
Display Housing
Traffic Horn Assembly - LH
Outer plastic cover
Outside stl cover
Mounting brkt
Traffic Horn Assembly - RH
Outer plastic cover
Outside stl cover
Mounting brkt
Mass-Reduction Ideas
Selected for Detail
Evaluation
Use Polyone foaming
agent
Use Polyone foaming
agent
Use Polyone foaming
agent
Use Polyone foaming
agent
Combo, plastic and
PolyOne
Combo, plastic and
PolyOne
Use Polyone foaming
agent
Combo, plastic and
PolyOne
Combo, plastic and
PolyOne
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 740
Image 4.13-2 (Left): Cluster Mask Assembly
Image 4.13-3 (Right): Cluster Rear Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.13-4 (Left): Display Housing
Image 4.13-5 (Right): Horn Outer Plastic Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
Image 4.13-6 (Left): Horn mounting Bracket
Image 4.13-7 (Right): Horn Outside Steel Cover
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.13.2 Info, Gage, and Warning System Mass Reduction / Compounding
This project recorded a system mass reduction of 0.248kg (15.72%) at a cost decrease of
$.66 ($2.66per kg). Furthermore, the contribution of the Information, Gage, and Warning
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 741
Device System to the overall vehicle mass reduction is 0.01%. There are no
compounding mass reductions for this system.
4.13.2.1 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact
Table 4.13-6 shows a summary of the overall cost impact driven by the weight reduction
applied to the Info, Gage and Warning System.
Table 4.13-6: Calculated Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results for the Info, Gage
and Warning System
I
13
13
"i 3
to
c
u)
tv
00
"ifi
"02
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
"00
Description
Info, Gage and Warning system
Driver Information Module (Instrument Cluster]
Traffic Horns (Electric)
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" (i)
0064
0.185
0.248
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" (i)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" ID
0.064
0.185
0.248
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
$0.49
$0.17
$0.66
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"*"«
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$"p)
S0.49
S0.17
$0.66
(Decrease)
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
$7.67
$0.93
$2.66
(Decrease)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
"%"
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+•" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.13.3 Info, Gage, and Warning Device System Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Info, Gage, and Warning Device System and for the
light weighted and compounded Transmission System is provided in Figure 4.13-2. The
"Steel & Iron" content category was reduced by nearly 13%, while "Plastic" increased by
11.6%.
-------
Baseline Info, Gage, and Warning Device
System
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 742
Total Info, Gage and Warning Device
System
Info, Gage & Warning
System Material Analysis^
Info, Gage & Warning
System Material Analysis
f 3. Aluminum
• 4. Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
* 6. Rubber
« 7. Plastic
8.Copper
9. Other
21.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
71.6%
0.0%
7.4%
Material Categories:
0.332 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.000 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.000 6. Rubber
1.130 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Copper
0.116 9. Other
8.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
83.2%
0.0%
8.7%
Material Categories:
0.108 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.000 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.000 6. Rubber
1.106 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Copper
0.116 9. Other
100%
1.578 TOTAL
100%
1.330 TOTAL
Figure 4.13-2: Calculated Info, Gage, and Warning Device System Baseline Material and Total
Material Content
4.14 Electrical Power Supply System
The Electrical Power Supply System is made up of one subsystem, the Service Battery
Subsystem. As shown in Table 4.14-1.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 743
Table 4.14-1: Electrical Power Supply System
tf>
-a
(0
14
CO
c
cr
tn
t
(D
00
Sub- Subsystem
00
DescripKn
Electrical Power Supply System
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Sy:-:e~ 5
Subsystem
Mass
'kg'
21.118
21.118
2454
0.86%
The electrical power supply system is made up of the battery and battery tray assembly as
shown in Image 4.14-1.
Image 4.14-1: Chevrolet Silverado battery assembly
(Source: A2macl database)
The Electrical Power Supply System, as displayed in Table 4.14-2, resulted in 12.8 kg of
mass reductions with a cost increase. This reduction resulted from converting the battery
from lead acid to lithium-ion and the battery trays from steel to plastic.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 744
Table 4.14-2: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Electrical Power Supply System
in
m
OJ
14
14
Subsystem
00
01
a-j
c
cr
in
a
cr
en
*
fC
"66"
00
Description
Electrical Power Supply System
Service Battery Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction Idea
Idea LeveJ
Seted
X
•^
Mass
Reduction
i&m
12.806
12.806
(Decrease)
1
Cos Impacs
V«2)
-$172.73
-$172.73
(Increase)
Average
Costf
Klogram
S/kg
-$13.49
-$13.49
(Increase)
Subsys./
Subsys.
Mass
Reducion
•%'
60.64%
60.64%
Vehtde
Mass
ReducSon
•%'
0.52%
0.52%
(1) "-•-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "-«-" = cost decrease,"-" = cost increase
Figure 4.14-1: Calculated Material Content for the Electrical Power Supply base BOM
Electrical Power Supply
System Material Analysis
16.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
83.8%
3.371
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.040
0.000
17.707
Material Cateaories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
100%
21.118 TOTAL
4.14.1 Service Battery Subsystem
4.14.1.1 Subsystems Content Overview
A breakdown of the Service Battery Subsystem is shown in Table 4.14-3. This
subsystem is made up of the Battery Heat Shield & Battery Management System Sub-
subsystem and this makes up the 21.118kg of the 21.118 kg system mass. This includes
the battery, battery tray, axillary battery support tray as well as the brackets and
attachments.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 745
Table 4.14-3: Service Battery Subsystem Breakdown
CO
^<
to
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 746
Image 4.14-2: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado Battery
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The Chevrolet Silverado Battery system also has a more common steel battery tray and
steel brackets for attachment. Image 4.14-3 shows the Silverado's battery tray.
Image 4.14-3: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado Battery Tray
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
The Chevrolet Silverado Battery system has an auxiliary battery tray that was not in use.
This adds unneeded weight to the vehicle. (Image 14-1), shows the Silverado's auxiliary
battery tray.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 747
Image 4.14-4: 2011 Chevrolet Silverado Auxiliary Battery Tray
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.14.1.3 Mass-Reduction Industry Trends
There are many different types of automotive batteries currently on the market.
Considering the way the automotive industry is progressing with more electric vehicles
and more start-stop systems, battery manufactures have been working to come up with
the lightest most cost effective battery. Some of the types of battery for automotive
applications are:
Lead-acid battery. This is the most common battery type and is made up of plates, lead,
and lead oxide (various other elements are used to change density, hardness, porosity,
etc.) with a 35% sulfuric acid and 65% water solution. This solution is called electrolyte,
which causes a chemical reaction that produces electrons.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 748
Figure 4.14-3: 2011 Common Lead Acid Battery Buildup
(Source: http:/Avww.batteryfaq. org)
Nickel-zinc battery. Nickel is more costly than the lead used in lead-acid batteries.
However, nickel-zinc cells have higher specific energy, energy density, and specific
power than do lead-acid cells. NiZn technology is well suited for fast recharge cycling.
90% of the constituent materials are recoverable.
Lithium-ion polymer battery (Li-Polymer). A distinct battery type from Li-Ion
batteries: the difference between them lies in the material used as the separator. Rather
than an inert substance with holes covered in electrolyte, the separator is made of a
micro-porous polymer covered in an electrolytic gel that also serves as a catalyst that
reduces the energy barrier in the chemical reaction between cathode and anode.
Therefore, Li-Polymer batteries allow for a slight increase in energy density. However,
this advantage is offset by a 10% to 30% cost increase. Therefore, because the same
materials are used for cathode and anode, Li-Polymer batteries follow the same chemical
process as Li-Ion batteries and are not a distinct class.
Lithium-ion battery (Li-Ion). These batteries provide light-weight, high-energy density
power sources. Because of their light weight, Li-Ion batteries are used for energy storage
for many electric vehicles for everything from electric cars to Pedicels, from hybrid
vehicles to advanced electric wheelchairs, from radio-controlled models and model
aircraft to the Mars Curiosity rover. They are adaptable in a wide variety of shapes and
sizes to efficiently fit the devices they power and lighter than other energy-equivalent
secondary batteries. Li-Ion batteries feature high open-circuit voltage in comparison to
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 749
aqueous batteries (such as lead acid, nickel-metal hydride and nickel-cadmium). This is
beneficial because it increases the amount of power that can be transferred at a lower
current with no memory effect. Self-discharge rate of approximately 5-10% per month,
compared to over 30% per month in common nickel metal hydride batteries,
approximately 1.25% per month for low self-discharge NiMH batteries and 10% per
month in nickel-cadmium batteries.
Cathode cover
Gasket.
insulator -
Cathode i
safety vent i
PTC / i
1II o u cLiOi
Center . / : Cathode ,•'
Pin Anode Anode lead
container
Figure 4.14-4: 2011 Lithium-Ion Battery Buildup
(Source: gm-volt.com)
Although lithium batteries have a ways to go to be an everyday battery for the automotive
market, great strides are being made in the development of the high production lithium-
ion battery and by the production years of 2020 - 2025 this will most likely be the battery
of choice for car makers.
The lithium-ion battery cost is subject to debate among auto manufacturers and battery
manufactures. The Deutsche Bank performed a lithium-ion battery cost forecast for 2020,
and the outcome was that the kWh cost would be approximately $250 per kWh. Based on
this information, the following figure shows the FEV battery cost calculation.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 750
Cost
Deutsche Bank revises li-ion battery cost
forecasts downward to $250/kWh by 2020
Fast-falling battery price expectations: 30%
f drop for 2012 DB Auto team forecast in one
year-
Laptop battery costs fell from $2K to
S250ovar-15 years, oraCAGRof
abuul I-V Trie DB auto team has
assume a lithium ion car battery cost
decline ol 7.5% CAGR through 2020
Dec-ID
Figure 4.14-5: Deutsche Bank Battery Cost Forecast, 2010 Study
(Source: http://www.alloutcars.com/deutsche-bank-revises-li-ion-battery-cost-forecasts-downward)
Considering this conclusion that the price for lithium-ion batteries will be $250 per kWh
come 2020, then a 70AH 12V battery (or .84 kWh) using $240 per kWh can be predicted
to equal $201.60 (FEV's estimate being $201.49). Although this study focused mainly on
EV batteries, FEV believes that using the same formula for main battery replacement is
not a far stretch. Also assuming a 2025 time frame this cost per kWh will be even lower.
The battery weight is also a debatable point. Figure 4.14-6 shows an example of the
potential weight saves.
-------
Weight
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 751
The Smart Battery SB75 offers state of the art technology "Lithium Iron Phosphate" the safest and most robust
lithium chemistry. Capable of reaching over 5000 cycles, The SB75 can be re-charged thousands of times providing
100% DOD (depth of discharge) The Smart Battery SB75 is perfect for boats, trolling motors, cars and almost any
application that would use a 12V 75AH lead acid, agm or gel battery
FEATURES
Fully automatic built in battery protection system
Automatic low voltage cut off - 8v
Automatic over voltage cut off - 16v
Automatic short circuit cut off - instant
Automatic internal cell balancing
High quality bolted cylindrical cell design
Built in ceil safety fuse " Nano Ceil Fuse Technology"
Long life 3000 - 5000 cycles
Lightweight - up to 70% lighter than lead
No voltage sag - faster cranking for motors and higher
voltage for continuous consistent power.
Dry Battery - no toxic lead or acid
Zero Maintenance
No venting or gassing
Heavy duty stainless steel bolts, washers and flat
washers included
99.1% efficient
Green ROHS compliant - No Lead
Use 100% of rated capacity
Does not heat up during use
Connect in series or in parallel
One battery for 12v, 24v, 36, or 48v applications
Figure 4.14-6: Potential Weight Savings of a Smart Battery Li-Ion Battery
The features cited states that up to a 70% weight savings can be achieved with the
lithium-ion battery. The original 70AH battery weighed 17.8kg. The lithium-ion's
estimated 5.9kg was a 67% savings with regards to FEV's study.
Claus Mochel, marketing director for Atmel Corporation, in a 2011 article wrote: "There
is no stopping the relentless march of lithium-ion batteries in e-vehicles (EV) and
hybride-vehicles (HEV). In the meantime, nearly every vehicle manufacturer develops a
battery of this kind for its fleet and some have already launched series production. The
use of Li-ion technology is no longer limited to high-performance batteries for e-vehicles
and hybrid vehicles. Li-ion batteries are now also available on the market for 12V
automotive on-board power supply systems.
"In the initial phase, the target market was motor racing and technology-minded
customers of sports car makers. The strongest motivator was a reduction in weight of
over 60%, which could be achieved by using Li-ion batteries compared to standard
lead-acid batteries. As is frequently the case, motor sport merely plays a pioneering role,
and several major carmakers are now working on 12V Li-ion on-board power supply
batteries for their fleet of production vehicles. This comes as no surprise given the
obvious benefits offered by Li-ion technology. In addition to their lower weight, Li-ion
batteries reduce the load on the alternator as they retain more power and are able to
handle the charge faster than lead-acid batteries. This results in reduced fuel consumption
and thus reduced CO2 emissions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 752
"In addition, Li-ion batteries offer distinct benefits with vehicles featuring start-stop
systems. While the life expectancy of lead-acid batteries—which are subject to constant
stress from repetitive engine starts—is only approximately 1.5 to 2 years, tests have
shown that Li-ion batteries can withstand robust use for over 6 years or more. The longer
service life combined with the far higher volume of Li-ion batteries anticipated in the
future—due to their increased use in e-vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and vehicles with start-
stop function—will inevitably result in considerable reductions in the cost of Li-ion
technology, which currently is still admittedly expensive." (©2011 Atmel Corporation)
A November 2009 article at https://www.geek.com/mobile/porsches-weight-saving-
lithium-ion-car-battery-1700-1364215/ states that more than a 63% weight savings can be
achieved, referencing Porsche's lithium-ion solution: "Weight is the enemy of fuel
economy on the highway and quick lap times on the track. Porsche has one solution in
the form of a lithium-ion replacement starter (main) battery that weighs in at just 13
pounds vs. 35 pounds for the traditional lead acid battery. "Less weight naturally means
greater agility and driving dynamics," Porsche notes in its release. This four-cell battery
runs $1,700 which, Porschephiles will be quick to agree, isn't all that much for a Porsche
option. It's available on the 2010 Porsche 911 GT3, 911 GT3 RS, and Boxster Spyder.
You get the standard lead acid battery as well and the two can be quickly swapped for
track days.
"Porsche says the two batteries have the same fastening points, connections, and voltage
range. Dimensions are the same except the lithium battery is 2.8" lower. It has a capacity
of 18 amp-hours vs. 60 Ah for a standard lead-acid battery, but the lithium-ion battery
delivers all its power, Porsche says, while a standard battery delivers about 30% of
what's available. Porsche also says the lithium-ion battery has more charge-discharge
cycles and is quicker to recharge. Porsche recommends against using the lithium battery
below 32 degrees because of its characteristics. You can charge it and jump-start like a
normal battery and the internal electronics protect against overcharge situations."
Cold Start
The cold start issue is addressed by the battery manufactures. With current progress, it is
felt that by the 2020-2025 timeframe all cold start issues will be resolved. A123 Systems
has addresses the cold start issue, saying in the following release that their new
technology will have 90% original capacity at 113°F and a 20% power increase at
temperatures as low as -22°F.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 753
A123 Systems Introduces Breakthrough Lithium Ion Battery
Technology That Optimizes Performance in Extreme
Temperatures
WALTHAM, Mass, June 12, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) (Nasdaq:AONE), a developer and
manufacturer of advanced Nanophosphale® lithium iron phosphate battenes and systems, today introduced
Nanophosphate EXT™, a new lithium ion battery technology capable of operating at extreme temperatures without
requmng thermal management Nanophosphate EXT is designed to significantly reduce or eliminate the need for heating
or cooling systems, which is expected to create sizeable new opportunities within the transportation and
telecommunications markets, among others
"We believe Nanophosphate EXT is a game-changing breakthrough that overcomes one of the key limitations of lead
acid standard lithium ion and other advanced battenes By delivering high power, energy and cycle life capabilities over
a wider temperature range, we believe Nanophosphate EXT can reduce or even eliminate the need for costly thermal
management systems, which we expect will dramatically enhance the business case for deploying A123's lithium ion
battery solutions for a significant number of applications." said David Vieau, CEO of A123 Systems "We continue to
emphasize innovation with a commercial purpose, and we expect Nanophosphate EXT to strengthen our competitive
position in existing target markets as well as create new opportunities for applications that previously were not possible to
cost-effectively serve with lithium ion batteries"
Unlike lead acid or other advanced battery technologies, Nanophosphate EXT is designed to maintain long cycle life at
extreme high temperatures and deliver high power at extreme low temperatures According to the testing performed to
date at the Ohio State University's Center for Automotive Research (CAR) and the very low observed rate of aging, cells
built with A123's Nanophosphate EXT are expected to be capable of retaining more than 90 percent of initial capacity
after 2,000 full charge-discharge cydes at 45 degrees Celsius CAR has also starting testing the cold temperature
performance of Nanophosphate EXT which A123 expects will deliver a 20 percent increase in power at temperatures as
low as minus 30 degrees Celsius
Figure 4.14-7: A123 Systems Li-Ion Nanophosphate EXT Battery Technology Release
(Source: http://www.al23systems.com/media-room-2012-press-releases.htm)
Some battery manufactures are producing lithium-ion battery for automotive applications.
For example, Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi Vehicle Energy, Ltd. which develops and
manufactures lithium-ion batteries for automotive applications (such as that in Image
4.14-5), have a fourth-generation lithium-ion battery that is small, light, and able to
provide the world's highest output.
Li-ion Battery
Image 4.14-5: Hitachi Lithium-Ion Battery
(Source: http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/090519a.html)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 754
Plastics are now used extensively in battery tray assemblies, depending on their
application and purpose. The 2012 Ford F150 battery tray assembly was utilized as a
design that would reduce both assembly and mass on the Silverado. Image 4.14-6 shows
the schematic for the F150 battery tray assembly.
Image 4.14-6: 2012 Ford F150 Battery Tray Assembly
(Source: A2macl database)
A straight comparison was done with the Silverado's battery tray and the Ford F150
battery tray. This was performed without removing any brackets and attachment methods.
More weight loss and cost may be removed from the Silverado's battery tray brackets and
attachment points with an in-depth study.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 755
Table 4.14-4: Summary of Mass-Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Electrical Power
Supply System
Component/Assembly
Mass-Reduction Idea
Estimated Impact
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Electrical Power
Supply System
Battery
Change Service Battery to Lithium-
Polymer Chemistry
53% Mass Reduction
Risk: Cost increase, Require priming when first used
and have a low self-discharge
Benefit: Smaller in size
Battery
Change to Lithium-Ion Battery
66% Mass Reduction
Risk: Cost increase
Benefit: higher energy density, less to manufacture
Battery
Battery tray
Aux Battery tray
Change to Nickel-zinc Battery
45% Mass Reduction
Change from steel to PP-GF30
Plastic
34% weight save &
cost increase
Change from steel to aluminum
Risk: high rate of self-discharge; NiMH batteries lose up
to 20% of their charge on the first day
Benefit: NiZn batteries provide sustained, high charge
acceptance over a much longer life span, 90% of the
Change from steel to PP-GF30
Plastic
25% weight save &
^osHncrease
34% weight save &
cost increase
Risk: EEStor's technology has been regarded, in some
quarters, as controversial.
Risk: Cost increase
Benefit: Lighter weight, non-rusting, used F150as
sxsamp\e
Risk: Cost increase
JBejieJifcJjgjTtejji/yejg^^
Risk: Cost increase
Benefit: Lighter weight, non-rusting
Aux Battery tray
Change from steel to aluminum
25% weight save &
cost increase
Risk: Cost increase
Benefit: Lighter weight, non-rusting
4.14.1.4
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas that were selected for the Electrical Power Supply System are
listed in Table 4.14-5.
Table 4.14-5: Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Electrical Power Supply
System
en
a
14
14
en
t
CD
00
01
rn
9"
rn
£=
cr
•%
<&.
00
01
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem Description
Electricsl Power Supplv System
Battery Heat Shield & Battery Management System
Battery
Battery Tray
Aux Battery Tray
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected lor Detail Evaluation
Change to Lithium-Ion Battery
Used PP-GF30, Used F150 as ref.
Used PP-GF30
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 756
4.14.2 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
4.14.2.1 Mass-Reduction & Cost Impact Results
The mass reductions that resulted for the Electrical Power Supply System are shown in
Table 4.14-6. This project recorded a system mass reduction of 12.81 kg (60.6%) at a
cost increase of $172.73, or $13.497 kg. The contribution of the Electrical Power Supply
System to the overall vehicle mass reduction is 0.54%. There are no compounding mass
reductions for this system.
Table 4.14-6: Mass-Reduction and Cost Impact for the Electrical Power Supply System
CO
L-=:
a
(D
3
14
14
to
cr
M
*<
a
00
01
CO
cr
CO
£=
cr
(0
*<
OJ
3
00
00
Description
Electrical Power Supply System
Service Battery Subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ,;•;;.
12.81
12.81
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :-:
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i)
12.81
12.81
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
iwfpn
* <2>
-$172.73
-$172.73
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"$" (2)
$0.00
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"$" (2)
-$172.73
-$172.73
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
-$13.49
-$13.49
(Increase)
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.52%
0.52%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
(2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.14.3 Electrical Power Supply System Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Transmission System and for the light weighted and
compounded Transmission System is provided in Figure 4.14-8. The "Steel & Iron"
content category was reduced by 14.4%, while "Plastic" increased by 24.4%.
-------
Base Material Content
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 757
Total Material Content
Electrical Power Supply
System Material Analysis
11. Steel & Iron
• 2. H.S. Steel
• 3. Aluminum
• 4. Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
i 6. Rubber
3 7. Plastic
i 8. Glass
9. Other
Electrical Power Supply
System Material Analysis
24.6%
• 1. Steel & Iron
• 2. H.S. Steel
• 3. Aluminum
• 4. Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
• 6. Rubber
• 7. Plastic
' 8. Glass
9. Other
16.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
83.8%
Material Categories:
3.371 1. SteelS Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.000 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.000 6. Rubber
0.040 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Glass
17.707 9. Other
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
24.6%
0.0%
73.8%
Material Categories:
0.130 1. Steel & Iron
0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.000 3. Aluminum
0.000 4. Magnesium
0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.000 6. Rubber
1.965 7. Plastic
0.000 8. Glass
5.902 9. Other
100% 21.118 TOTAL 100% 7.998 TOTAL
Figure 4.14-8: Calculated Material Content between Baseline Material and Total Material Content
4.15 In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Chevrolet Silverado has a baseline entertainment system, with a basic radio, CD, MP3,
and USB input connection. The mass is shown in Table 4.15-1.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 758
Table 4.15-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Cf>
1
15
15
15
| Subsystem
00
01
02
Sub- Subsystem
00
00
00
Desciiplon
In-Vehicle Entertainment System
Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
Antenna Subsystem
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System £
Subsystem
Mass
•Kg*
1.731
0.502
2.233
2454
0.09%
Image 4.15-1: Delphi Ultra-Light Radio Designs
(Source: Delphi.com)
The Silverado in this study has a Delphi ultra-light plastic case radio design with insert-
molded electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) shielding. This design is available on
Chevrolet and GMC full size pick-ups and sport utility vehicles. It won top recognition at
the 2009 39th Annual Society of Plastics Engineers International (SPE) Automotive
Innovation Awards ceremony, Livonia, Michigan. This radio is half the mass of steel case
systems otherwise used in the infotainment industry.
Portable entertainment systems are quickly becoming a necessity for families of all sizes.
New fleets of cars and minivans are equipped standard with the latest DVD player and
overhead TV screens. Luxury cars are no longer the only vehicles installed with premium
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 759
entertainment accessories such as iPod jacks, Wi-Fi, surround sound MP3 players, and
cinematic options with video players: Pickup trucks and SUVs have the same
infotainment options as other vehicles.
Baseline In-Vehicle Entertainment System Total In-Vehicle Entertainment System
In-Vehical Entertainment
Material Analysis
* • L SteelS
In-Vehical Entertainment
Material Analysis
• 1. Steels
4.7%
0.0%
Q.0:.«
BJK
0.0%
0.0%
SS.9%
0.0%
6.4%
0.129
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.431
0.000
0.175
Material Categories;
1, Steel a Iron
2, H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6, Rubber
7, Plastic
S. Glass
9, Other
I
4.7%
o.o-~,
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3S.9%
0.0%
6.4%
0,129
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
0,000
2.431
0,000
0.175
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2, H.S, Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Pilagnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6, Rubber
7. Plastic
8, Glass
9. Other
1
100%
2.735 TOTAL
100=:
2,735 TOTAL
Figure 4.15-1: Calculated In-Vehicle Entertainment System Baseline Material and Total Material
Content
4.15.1 In-Vehicle Receiver and Audio Media Subsystem
FEV did not see any opportunities to reduce the current overall mass on this system. It is
to note that the Delphi in-vehicle entertainment system is the same FEV cited as a
weight-saving example in the EPA study, "Light-Duty Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost
Analysis - Midsize CUV (EPA-420-R12-026). "
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 760
4.16 Lighting System
The Lighting System (broken down in Table 4.16-1) consisted of the Front Lighting,
Interior Lighting, Rear Lighting, Special Mechanisms, and the Light Switches
Subsystems. There is no mass for either the Interior Lighting or the Special Mechanisms
Subsystems as these components were kept with their respective interior assemblies (e.g.,
headliner or instrument panel).
Table 4.16-1: Baseline Subsystem Breakdown for the Lighting System
en
^<
(j>
(D
3
17
17
17
17
17
17
Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
Sub-Subsystem
00
00
00
00
00
00
Description
Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting Subsystem
Rear Lighting Subsystem
Lighting - Special Mechanisms Subsystem
Light Switches Subsystem
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System &
Subsystem
Mass
"kg"
6.699
6.666
2.736
0.000
0.125
9.560
2454
0.39%
Lighting System
Material Analysis
18.2%
• 1. Steel & Iron
• 2. H.S. Steel
• 3. Aluminum
• 4. Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
« 6. Rubber
* 7. Plastic
-'8. Glass
9. Other
13.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
66.8%
0.0%
18.2%
1.324
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.113
0.000
6.387
0.000
1.737
Material Cateaories:
1. Steel &lron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam /Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
100%
9.560 TOTAL
Figure 4.16-1: Calculated Material Content for the Base BOM
The Front Lighting Subsystem, as seen in Table 4.16-2, resulted in 0.386 kg of mass
reductions with a cost increase of -$2.00 The Rear Lighting Subsystem did not result in
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 761
mass reduction ideas. A foaming agent could not be applied to the rear tail lamp housings
because the reflective coating's aesthetic quality would be reduced. The front headlamp
housings have separate reflectors and thus require no coating to be applied.
Table 4.16-2: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Lighting System
CO
-<:
o
3
17
17
17
17
17
17
Subsyste
3
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
CO
c
tr
CO
i=
cr
v>
•-=:
^
-" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
^2) "-1-" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.16.1 Front Lighting Subsystem
4.16.1.1 Subsystems Content Overview
A breakdown of the Front Lighting Subsystem is shown in Table 4.16-3. This subsystem
makes up the majority of the Lighting System's mass. This includes the Headlamp
Cluster Assembly Sub-subsystem (front headlamps), as well as the Supplemental Front
Lamps Sub-subsystem (fog lights).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 762
Table 4.16-3: Front Lighting Subsystem Breakdown
en
»<
(n
(D
3
17
17
17
Subsystem
'01
'01
'01
Sub-Subsystem
'00
'01
^04
Description
Front Lighting Subsystem
Headlamp Cluster Assembly
Supplemental Front Lamps
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem
& Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
6.179
0.520
6.699
9.560
2454
70.08%
0.27%
4.16.1.2 Baseline System Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado headlamps include incandescent lights, projector lights, and the
turn signal indicators. A Silverado front headlamp assembly (Image 4.16-1) includes a
polypropylene housing (Image 4.16-2), a polycarbonate lens, and reflectors made of a
bulk molding compound (BMC) (Image 4.16-3).
Image 4.16-1: Chevrolet Silverado Front Headlamp Assembly
Image 4.16-2: Chevrolet Silverado Front Headlamp Housing
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 763
Image 4.16-3: Chevrolet Silverado Headlamp Assembly Inner Reflector
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
4.16.1.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
High Intensity Discharge (HID) and LED lights are becoming popular choices both for
visibility and for styling. These lights may offer mass reduction but usually weigh and
cost more than their traditional counterparts.
HID lights have ballast which adds mass and cost to the headlamp. LED produce heat at
the light source and may require heat sinks or cooling fans. These cooling solutions add
mass and cost to the headlamp.
Various types of plastics are used in headlamp assemblies depending on their application
and purpose. The reflector component helps illuminate the light output of the bulbs and is
a relatively dense plastic because of the high heat requirements it needs to maintain.
Often times, a Bulk Molding Compound (BMC) is used for the reflectors, which is
capable of enduring the elevated temperatures. BMCs have a relatively high density
compared to other plastics. SABIC has a product line called Ultem® for this specific
application, which is a type of polyetherimide (PEI). These plastics are specifically
developed and used for headlamp reflectors so they possess the necessary thermal
requirements plus have a lower density compared to BMCs. Typical BMCs have a
density of 2 g/cm3 and Ultem PEI has a density of approximately 1.3 g/cm3. In addition,
Ultem PEI can be molded in thinner wall sections. SABIC's Ultem material has been
used in production and a few examples are shown in Image 4.16-4.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 764
Recent Main Beam Ultem Reflectors
Image 4.16-4: SABIC Ultem Production Application Examples
(Photo Courtesy of SABIC)
Although more expensive from a material standpoint, Ultem saves some cost on
processing. When using a PEI such as Ultem, the part can go directly from its injection
molding step to metalizing, saving on surface preparation costs. The metalizing often
takes place through a process called Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) for headlamp
reflectors.
4.16.1.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
The mass reduction ideas considered for the Front Lighting Subsystem are compiled in
Table 4.16-4. Trexel's MuCell process is considered for use on applicable plastic
housings along with PolyOne's Chemical Foaming Agents, reference Section 4.3 for
more information on these technologies. In addition, the Ultem® PEI material was
considered as discussed in the previous section. For the rear tail lamp reflectors, PEI was
not applicable as those components were already made of a lightweight PBT plastic.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 765
Table 4.16-4: Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Initially Considered for the Front Lighting
Subsystem
Component/ Assembly
Front Headlamp
Housings
Base - Front Fog
Lamps
Front Headlamp Inner
Reflectors
Front Fog Lamp
Housings
Front Headlamps
Front Fog Lamps
Mass-Reduction Idea
MuCell®
PolyOne CFA
Replace UP-
(MD60+GF20) with SABIC
ULTEM
Replace PBTwith SABIC
ULTEM
Use LED lighting system
Use LED lighting system
Estimated Impact
10% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
40-50% Mass
Reduction
40-50% Mass
Reduction
40-50% Mass
Reduction
40-50% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Mass reduction with cost savings.
Used by Ford in High Volume
Programs
Cannot use for Fog Lamp Base
High Cost- Used on the Audi A1,
Cadllac CTS and others
Cannot applyto Front Fog Lamp
Housings
Design Feature. High Cost, Little
mass savings due to heat sinks and
cooling systems that are required.
Design Feature. High Cost, Little
mass savings due to heat sinks and
cooling systems that are required.
4.16.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
The mass reduction ideas that were selected for the Front Lighting Subsystem are listed
in Table 4.16-5. MuCell was applied to the Front Headlamp Housings. LEDs were not
selected to replace the current bulbs do to the additional required cooling parts.
Table 4.16-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Analysis of the Front Lighting Subsystem
CO
CD"
3
17
17
17
| Subsyste
3
01
01
01
| Sub-Subsys
CD"
3
00
01
01
Subsystem Sub-Subsystem
Description
Front Lighting
Headlamp Housings
Headlamp Housings
Mass-Reduction Ideas Selected for Detail Evaluation
MuCell® applied to Housings
Front Headlamp Inner Reflectors Replace UP-(MD60+GF20)
with SABIC ULTEM
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 766
4.16.2 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
This project recorded a system mass reduction of 0.39 kg (4%) with a cost increase of
$2.00, or $5.18 per kg. The contribution of the Lighting System to the overall vehicle
mass reduction was 0.02%. There are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
4.16.2.1 Mass Reduction and Cost Impact Results
The Front Lighting Subsystem, as seen in Table 4.16-6, resulted in 0.386 kg of mass
reductions with a cost increase of -$2.00 The Rear Lighting Subsystem did not result in
mass reduction ideas. A foaming agent could not be applied to the Rear Tail Lamp
Housings because it would reduce the aesthetic quality of the reflective coating. The
Front Headlamp Housings have separate reflectors and thus require no coating to be
applied.
Table 4.16-6: Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for the Front Lighting Subsystem.
CO
1
17
17
17
17
17
17
CO
(A
2.
1
"66'
01
'02
ra
'04
05
CO
o-
CO
E
cr
«1
ST
3
'oo"
00
'oo
00
'oo
00
Description
Lighting System
Front Lighting Subsystem
Interior Lighting Subsystem
Rear Liij"- •:; ...... ..:•:•
Lighting Soecial Mechanis "s Subsystem
Light Switches subsystem
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" [i]
0.386
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.386
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" :•:
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0-00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (•>
0.386
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.386
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
-$2.00
$0.00
$0.00
JO.OO
JO-00
-$2.00
(Increase)
Cost
Impact
Comp
T'(2>
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0-00
JO.OO
Cost
Impact
Total
"I" (2)
-$2.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
-$2.00
(Increase)
Cost'
Kilogram
Total
"$/kg"
-$5.18
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0-00
' -$5.18
(Increase)
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0.02%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.02%
(1) "+" = mass decrease, "-" = mass increase
r[2) "+" = cost decrease, "-" = cost increase
4.16.3 Lighting System Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Lighting System and for the light weighted and
compounded Transmission System is provided in Figure 4.16-2. The "Plastic" content
category was reduced by 1.4%, while "Steel & Iron" and "Other" increased by 0.6% and
0.7%, respectively.
-------
Baseline Lighting System
Lighting System
Material Analysis
18.2%
• 1. SteelS, Iron
• 2. H.S. Steel
• 3. Aluminum
• 4. Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
• 7. Plastic
3 8. Glass
9. Other
13.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
66.8%
0.0%
18.2%
1.324
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.113
0.000
6.387
0.000
1.737
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
100%
9.560 TOTAL
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 767
Total Lighting System
Lighting System
Material Analysis
18.9%
• 1. Steel & Iron
• 2.H.S. Steel
• 3. Aluminum
• 4. Magnesium
• 5. Foam/Carpet
• 6. Rubber
• 7. Plastic
• 8. Glass
9. Other
14.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.2%
0.0%
65.4%
0.0%
18.9%
1.324
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.113
0.000
6.001
0.000
1.737
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Glass
9. Other
100%
9.174 TOTAL
Figure 4.16-2: Calculated Lighting System Baseline Material and Total Material Content
4.17 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
Cable harnesses are usually designed according to geometric and electrical requirements.
The wires are first cut to the desired length, usually using a special wire-cutting machine.
The wires may also be printed on by a special machine during the cutting process or later
on a separate machine. After this, the coated ends are stripped to expose the metal wires,
which are fitted with any required terminals and/or connector housings.
The cables are assembled and clamped together on a special workbench or to a formboard
(according to design specification), such as shown in Image 4.17-1, to make the cable
harness. After fitting any protective sleeves and/or conduit, the harness is either fitted
directly into the vehicle or shipped for fitting at a later time and location. Despite
increasing automation, cable harnesses continue to be manufactured generally by hand.
This will likely remain the case for the immediate future: due to the many different
processes involved, cable assembly is difficult to automate. However, these processes can
be learned relatively quickly, even without professional qualifications.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 768
Image 4.17-1: Production Process of Automotive Wire to Formboard
(Source: http://www.cfibermfg. com/WiringHarnessGuide.pdf Photo)
The Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System is made up of the Electrical
Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem. As shown in Table 4.17-1, this makes up the
total system.
Table 4.17-1: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Electrical System.
CO
1
fD
18
18
Subsystem
00
01
to
&
CO
c
cr
O7
•&
(D
00
00
Bescr p:«cn
Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
System Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
System 4
Subsys&m
Mass
'kg'
33.595
33.595
2454
1.37%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 769
Electrical System Material
Analysis
'
• 1. Steel & iron
Material Categories:
1.2% 0.399 1. Steel & Iron
0.0% 0.000 2. H.S. Steel
0.0% 0.000 3. Aluminum
0.0% 0.000 4. Magnesium
0.0% 0.000 5. Foam/Carpet
0.0% 0.000 6. Rubber
33.3% 11.184 7. Plastic
33.7% 11.310 8. Copper
31.9% 10.701 9. Other
100%
33.595 TOTAL
Figure 4.17-1: Calculated Base Material Content for the Base BOM
Table 4.17-2: Mass Breakdown by Subsystem for Electrical System
1
18
"if
18
18
18
18
jf
18
18
CO
&
1
o>
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
"d'i"
01
01
CO
9"
CO
&
t
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 770
Image 4.17-2: Instrument Panel Wiring Harness
(Source: KB Racing, http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/wiring_ecu.html
The most significant contributor to the mass of the Electrical Wiring and Circuit
Protection Subsystem is the Instrument Panel Harness Sub-subsystem at 6.88 kg. Table
4.17-3 shows the mass contribution of all included sub-subsystems.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 771
Table 4.17-3: Mass Breakdown by Sub-subsystem for the Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
Cfl
•<
(/)
(D
3
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Subsystem
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
Sub-Subsystem
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
99
Description
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring
Instrument Panel Harness
Body and Rear End Wiring
Trailer Tow Wiring
Battery Cables
Load Compartment Fuse Box / Passive
Interior & Console wiring
Frt & Rear door harness
Misc.
Total Subsystem Mass =
Total System Mass =
Total Vehicle Mass =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to System =
Subsystem Mass Contribution Relative to Vehicle =
Subsystem &
Sub-
subsystem
Mass
"kg"
5.791
6.883
3.519
5.228
1.782
2.945
1.397
1.814
4.237
33.595
33.595
2454
100.00%
1.37%
4.17.1.2 Chevrolet Silverado Baseline Subsystem Technology
The Chevrolet Silverado's electrical systems follow an industry norm with copper wire
contained in PVC insulation. Wire gauge sizes are optimized for current capacities.
4.17.1.3 Mass Reduction Industry Trends
Industry trends for automotive wiring systems allow for a variety for wire and wire
sheathing options. The wire compositions come in many combinations, annealed bare
copper, silver tin and nickel plated copper, copper clad steel, copper clad aluminum,
copper clad magnesium, stranded, single core and flat cables. Reviewing today's market
options, each wire type is found to have its different pros and cons. For this study, cost
and weight were the most closely examined in order to determine the final selection for
mass weight reduction.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 772
4.17.1.4 Summary of Mass Reduction Concepts Considered
The many aspects and variety of new concepts for automotive wiring can be debated for
hours to determine the best way forward. For this study, all the previously mentioned
concepts were reviewed and given consideration with three key areas in mind: weight,
cost and recycling capability. Companies such as Delphi, Sumitomo, Furukawa and Axon
Cable produce large amounts of automotive wiring and are moving toward providing new
products such as copper-clad aluminum and aluminum wire. Each wiring has respective
advantages and disadvantages relating to usage and manufacturing processes, with weight
a hot-button issue. As this directly relates to increasing mileage, more OEMs and
suppliers are thinking outside the box. Sumitomo developed the aluminum wire harness
that was used in the 2010 Toyota Ractis and in the 2011 Toyota Yaris.
Some of the ideas evaluated, but not considered, included: flexible printed circuit,
replacing wiring troughs where applicable with BIW, replacing copper conductors with
copper-coated aluminum (CCA) conductors, replacing stamped module housings with
conductive plastics and/or plating for EMI, eliminating or reducing empty connector
cavities, replacing low current and signal wires with copper magnesium (CuMg) alloy
conductors, replacing signal leads with brass FLRMSY conductors, and using a fiber
optic network or carbon nanotubes. The summary of mass reduction technologies
considered is detailed in Table 4.17-4.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 773
Table 4.17-4: Summary of Mass Reduction concepts initially considered for the Electrical Wiring
and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Component/Assembly
All Harness's
All Harness's
All Harness's
All Harness's
All Harness's
IP Harness 1
connector box brkt
Fuse Boxsupport
Fuse Box- Cover
Headlinerwiring
Frt & Rear door wiring
Mass-Reduction Idea
Remove PVC coating
and replace with PRO
coating on orig. copper
wire harness's
Aluminum Wire with
PRO coating
CopperClad Aluminum-
CCA wire with PRO
coating
CopperClad Mag wire
with PPO coating
Copper Clad steel wire
with PPO coating
From steel to ABS
plastic, PolyOne
foaming agent for added
10% mass reduction
Use Polyone foaming
agent
Add 3M glass bubbles
plastic additive
Use Polyone foaming
agent
Add 3M glass bubbles
plastic additive
Use flat wire
Use flat wire
Estimated Impact
20% Mass
Reduction
43% Mass
Reduction
39% Mass
Reduction
Mass Reduction
Mass Reduction
33% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
18.5% Mass
Reduction
10% Mass
Reduction
18.5% Mass
Reduction
80% Mass
Reduction
80% Mass
Reduction
Risks & Trade-offs and/or Benefits
Lower material cost, Lower mass,
Smallerwire dia.
Lower material cost, Added processing
needed for connection issue, Larger
harness bundle size,
Higher strength than aluminium,
Higher electrical conductivity than pure
aluminium, Lighterthan pure copper,
Lower material cost, Added processing
needed for connection issue, Larger
harness bundle size,
High material cost, Added processing
needed for connection issue
High material cost, Added processing
needed for connection issue
Less tooling, lower material usage,
faster cycle time, smaller press size
Less tooling, lower material usage,
faster cycle time, smaller press size
Less tooling, lower material usage,
Higher mat'l cost
Less tooling, lower material usage,
faster cycle time, smaller press size
Less tooling, lower material usage,
Higher mat'l cost
Higher mat'l cost, Trimination issues,
Less assytime
Higher mat'l cost, Trimination issues,
Less assytime
4.17.1.5
Selection of Mass Reduction Ideas
Following the review of today's market innovations and trends, FEV has opted to use
aluminum wire and PPO sheathing on all wire harnesses. With these two methods a
significant weight and cost savings can be achieved. Flat cable was also used for the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 774
headliner and doors. The cost and weight reductions were provided by Axon cable®. The
paragraphs below will be broken into sections to discuss the different types of wire,
connectors and other items.
4.17.1.5.1 Aluminum Wire
There continue to be some issues with using aluminum wiring, of which aluminum
oxidation, coefficient of expansion, creep, and lack of North American aluminum wire
production are the most common.
Image 4.17-3: Aluminum Stranded wire
(Source: Google Images)
The use of newer aluminum alloys, such as Furukawa Automotive Systems 1000 system
aluminum wire, as compared to the older 8000 series aluminum wire from the 1970s has
created better conductivity, joining, strength and bending by changing some of the alloy
properties, such as by adding iron, copper, and magnesium.
Since the newly developed aluminum wire has strength of 200 MPa that is twice as
strong as existing aluminum wire, it can be used as a harness around an engine subject to
big vibrations and doors subject to impacts created by opening and closing in place of
cooper wire. If aluminum wire harness replaces copper wire harness completely in a
vehicle, the weight of the total wire harness of a vehicle will be halved. Lighter wire
harness contributes to fuel consumption greatly because it is said that reducing the weight
of a car by just under 100 kg and improves fuel consumption by 1 km/liter.
Furukawa Electric plans to start shipping samples in 2014 in time for the design of the
models to be launched in 2017. The world wire harness market is expected to increase
30% by 2030 over the 2010 levels. Though aluminum wire harness is currently estimated
to account for less than 50% of the market, the newly developed aluminum wire will
accelerate the replacement from copper wire harness to aluminum wire harness.
The Sumitomo Group is another company that has developed low-voltage aluminum-
wired harnesses for automotive use. Stuart Burns, in his article Aluminum Replacing
Copper in Automotive Applications said: "The Sumitomo Group says it developed the
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 775
lightweight wiring harnesses using thin aluminum wires with twisted wire structures to
ensure reliability of electrical connection. It seems probable we should factor in
automotive wiring to become a major driver of aluminum consumption in the years
ahead."[46]
While Osaka-based Sumitomo Electric has offered aluminum wiring in the past, such as
in the 2010 Toyota Ractis and 2011 Yaris, the products could only be used in limited
areas of the vehicle because they were not resistant enough to heat and vibration. The
new products could be used throughout a vehicle.
Image 4.17-4: Sumitomo Electric's Aluminum Electrical Wiring for Toyota Ractis
(Source: Sumitomo Electric Industries)
4.17.1.5.2 Aluminum Wire Connectors
Image 4.17-5: Delphi Aluminum Capable Terminals
(Source: Delphi.com)
46 Source: http://agmetalminer. com/2011/03/28/aluminum-replacing-copper-in-automotive-applications/
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 776
Connectors come in different configurations, depending on the manufacturer and the
application in the wiring harness. A simple connector idea was put forward by the
Sumitomo group was to redesign the conventional connector style. This connector
(Image 4.17-6) was introduced in a 2011 paper titled "Development of Aluminum Wiring
Harness. "[47]
Image 4.17-6: Aluminum Connectors, Conventional (left) and New Aluminum (right)
(Source: http://global-sei. com/tr/pdf/automotive/73-12.pdf)
The study behind that paper found that a better bond could be made by adding serrations
to the inside of the barrel on the connector area.
Two methods were used for anti-corrosion. Terminals for the terminal part of a wire
harness generally use brass or copper alloys. This raised a concern that galvanic corrosion
occurred in the connection area of the aluminum wire and the terminal depending on the
external environment. In an automobile environment installation, the aluminum wire,
which is adapted to the part which has a galvanic corrosion concern, needs an anti-
corrosion treatment in the terminal. For the anti-corrosion method, an environmental
deprivation method was developed, which blocks the contact interface of the aluminum
conductor and the copper terminal from outside using a resin material. Two kinds of anti-
corrosion treatments were consolidated: the molding method and the dropping method
(Image 4.17-7).
47 Source: http://global-sei.com/tr/pdf/automotive/73-12.pdf
-------
Molding method
I
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 777
Dropping method
Image 4.17-7: Terminal Anti-corrosion Treatments
(Source: http://global-sei. com/tr/pdf/automotive/73-12.pdf)
The Delphi process adds a special sealant to the crimp (Image 4.17-8) to protect the wire
connection over the life of the vehicle.
Image 4.17-8: Aluminum Stranded Wire - Sealant
(Source: Delphi.com)
The terminal is then crimped to the aluminum wire over the sealant (Image 4.17-9).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 778
Image 4.17-9: Aluminum Stranded Wire - Crimping
(Source: Delphi.com)
A light is then applied to cure the sealant (Image 4.17-10).
Image 4.17-10: Aluminum Stranded Wire - Curing Process
(Source: Delphi.com)
Different applications require different sizes of aluminum cable. The primary cable spans
between .75 and 2.5 mm2, the intermediate size is from 3 mm to 8 mm2; anything over 8
mm2 is power or battery cable.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 779
Image 4.17-11: Aluminum Stranded Wire
(Source: Delphi.com)
Delphi has also done real world testing on fleet vehicles. For example, Delphi has added
60% aluminum cables into a 2011 SUV. Delphi also added aluminum cables into police
cars in Maine and taxi cabs in Florida to gather information on how aluminum cable
preforms in cold and warm weather. The fleet test vehicles have reached almost one
million miles in testing. Remote monitoring from Delphi on the performance of the
aluminum cables provided real time feed back to the Delphi engineering team, which will
help in the development of future aluminum wire harnesses.
Other work being done on connectors is from the Scientists of the chairs for High
Voltage Technology and Power Transmission and for Metal Casting and Forming, in
cooperation with the respective departments of the BMW Group, developed an
innovative aluminum-based electrical connection concept in the project LEIKO (Image
4.17-12).
Image 4.17-12: Lab Version of LEIKO Aluminum Power Plug
(Source: http://www.greencarcongress.com/201 l/02/tum-20110207.html)
A sheet metal cage, which is an electromagnetic compatibility requirement, enhances the
mechanical stability of the plug and guarantees the long-term support of the contact
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 780
pressure spring. Since the necessary contact force is no longer provided by the contact
elements themselves, the aluminum problematic creep behavior turns into a contact
stabilizer and, thus, a positive property. This, in turn, guarantees a constant contact force
over a lifetime of 10 years.
According to Professor Udo Lindemann at the Institute of Product Development at TUM
(Technische Universitat Munchen), "We expect the high-voltage on-board systems of
most electric vehicles to be based on aluminum by 2020. Aluminum will find its way into
low-voltage on-board systems as well, because the price of copper will rise significantly
with increasing demand. "[48]
Other connectors in development or in production include the Materion Corporation
Automotive Connectors, aluminum combined with copper (Image 4.17-13).
Image 4.17-13: Aluminum Stranded Wire
(Source: http://materion.com/Technologies/InlayCladding/InlayCladding-AutomotiveConnectors-
AluminumCopper. aspx)
The growing use of aluminum in automotive wire harnesses and components has created
new challenges for traditional connectors. Overcoming the mechanical and galvanic
mismatch of joining aluminum with copper devices requires a new approach to connector
design.
Technical Materials' copper aluminum dovetail clad is a drop-in solution to stamping this
new family of connectors. The internal joint between copper and aluminum ensures
excellent electrical and mechanical performance. Galvanically, the internal joint is easily
protected and isolated.3
48 http://www.greencarcongress.com/201 l/02/tum-20110207.html
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 781
Flat Wire
Flat wire costs and weight reductions provided by Axon Cable® the range of flat cables
with flat conductors which have been specially designed for cabling in all parts of the
vehicle. They are made of flat copper conductors and a thermoplastic insulation which
ensures perfect humidity and water resistance. Axon Cable also has a range of flat cables
with round pins which can be soldered or inserted to achieve board to board
interconnections.
Figure 4.17-2: Most Common Places Where Flat Cable is Used
(Source: Axon Cable)
low edge width
Figure 4.17-3: Extruded FFC, with Round Edges and Low Edge Width
(Source: http://multimedia. 3m. com/mws/mediawebserver)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 782
Image 4.17-14: Flat Wire in Door (left) and Headliner (right) Applications
(Source: http://multimedia. 3m. com/mws/mediaweb server)
Using flat wire for some wire harness applications is a good option, such as in the
headliner, doors or in the seats. Flat wire has distinct advantages:
• Weight savings potential. Thin insulation allows for conductor gauge reduction
• Lower overall systems cost, due to pre-defined positions of connectors and
housings (shortened assembly time)
• Only two material components (no adhesive, only copper and extrusion material)
• Matrix technology for optimized layout (multiple usage of individual conductors)
• Reduction of connectors (direct contacting of components)
• Lower profile harness (packaging space reduction)
• Flat conductor profile (provides better heat dissipation)
• Elimination of components through integration
• Reduction in number of attachments, components, and harness coverings
• Dimensional stability/component level tolerance repeatability - 100%
repeatability from one harness to the next
• Custom 3-D packaging. An application specific design ensures better fit to a
substructure
• Flexibility and high ductility of FPC/FEC materials allow for 3-D form fitting to
the surface profile
• Modularity Circuit patterns allows for control of electromagnetic interference and
cross talk
• Reliability - Reduction in potential failure points
While there are many advantages to using flat wire harnesses, there are also
disadvantages:
• Termination issues in the field
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 783
• Serviceably
• Under hood issues due to high temps
• Not good for high current items
42-volt systems
The future of automotive wiring is hard to predict: it could be any number of different
configurations of wire or new, undiscovered materials. A few things being considered
include the applications of fiber optics and carbon nanotubes, which are in the beginning
stages of development. Information is therefore limited on the applications, cost, and
weight reduction that they might have in future automobiles. Another option includes
changing the voltage system to a 42-volt system.
Converting to 42 volts is much easier said than done: To change voltages, everything
from a vehicle's lighting to charging systems would have to be redesigned. Wiring,
connectors, and relays will all need to change. Some of these connector changes would
already be done if moving to aluminum wire.
For the automotive industry, however, this is good news because the 42-volt systems
could help reduce vehicle weight. It begins with the wiring harness. Low-voltage
electricity must flow at high amperage to operate vehicle accessories, which requires
thick cables and harnesses. While advantageous for the copper industry, it presents an
engineering nightmare for the automotive industry. Tripling the voltage, however,
effectively cuts the current by two-thirds while still providing the same power capability.
For example, given that electrical power is the product of amperes multiplied by voltage,
an electric motor that takes 12 amperes at 12 volts requires only 6 amperes at 24 volts, or
4 amperes at 36 volts. This enables the automotive industry to downsize wiring, shrink
components, and perhaps rethink electrical architecture.
According to Charles J. Murray in his 2002 article, Car Makers Turn Toward 42-Volt
Systems}49^ many automotive engineers were certain that automakers would soon replace
the 12-volt car battery with a 42-V model. Automotive experts at the 42-Volt Automotive
Systems Conference of the time predicted that half of all new vehicles would incorporate
42-V electrical architectures by 2010, and that 100% would have the technology by 2020.
Murray also noted several car manufacturers had already, or would soon introduce cars
with 42-V architectures. Toyota described the development of its new Crown Mild
Hybrid, which incorporates a 42-V/14-V electrical architecture. Ford Motor Company
said it was working on a dual-voltage (42/14-V) station wagon, the Mondeo. Daimler,
meanwhile, announced that it was using a dual-voltage design on a future Mercedes SL.
49 Source: http://www.eetimes. com/document, asp?doc id= 122 7292
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 784
While there are many advantages to a 42-volt system, there are also disadvantages. Some
of these disadvantages include having to use a DC-to-DC converter, dropper resistors,
battery changes, special alternator generators, packaging of units, arcing, load dump
spikes, ignition system design (applicable to gasoline 1C engine vehicles only), battery,
and alternator - all of which need to be addressed. Therefore, at this time it cannot be
stated what the cost savings or increase would be to change from the 12-volt system to
the 42-volt system.
Wire Sheathing
Wire sheathing used since the 1970s has been primarily polyvinyl chloride (PVC). With
new polyphenylene oxide (PPO) and PPE polymers, manufactures are making
improvements in wire sheathing cost, weight, and the recyclability.
PPO wire sheathing outperforms traditional PVC-insulated and XLPE-insulated wire. It
is also friendly to the environment: PPO wire does not release the environmental
pollutants characteristic of PVC-insulated wire. This fully recyclable product also meets
or exceeds the electrical and thermal characteristics of PVC wire, while being smaller,
lighter, and more durable. It features:
• Non-pollutant, non-toxic and recyclable since it contains no halogens, phthalates
or heavy metals
• Dielectric properties of PPO enable a thinner wall thickness and outside diameter
up to 45%smaller than PVC
• PPO-based wires offer the same electrical properties as PVC wires with a voltage
rating of 600V
The strength and flexibility of PPO enables it to outperform PVC and other insulation
materials reduced weight by up to 40%. This is due to PPO's lower specific
gravity/density as compared with PVC, polyethylene (PE) and XLPE insulations
PVC is a thermoplastic polymer that is the most commonly used wire sheathing today.
The advantages of using PVC are that it is inexpensive and effective. Heat, however, is
an issue with PVC. PVC can only be used in 60% of automotive wiring harness
applications. For high heat areas, such as the engine compartment, cross-linked
polyethylene is used. PVC and cross-linked polyethylene both have environmental
drawbacks as well, such as toxic halogens that can cause dioxin release and recycling
issues. New products being developed by polymer manufactures will be the next
generation of wire sheathing. PPO products are thinner, lighter, and stronger than PVC -
plus, it is recyclable.
The PPO coating is an advanced material based on PPO and an olefin. This new flexible
Noryl wire coating lacks the halogens and the potential for dioxin release - which have
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 785
given PVC a bad name. PPO coating has an inherent weight advantage when the two
materials are used equally.
Based on this advantage, savings come from the ability to use less PPO to match or even
beat the performance of PVC. For example, on wires up to 1.5 mm2, Delphi would
typically use a 0.4-mm-thick PVC coating to meet its customers' requirements. The
corresponding PPO thickness, by contrast, would be just 0.2 mm. PPO offers 7 to 10
times more pinch and abrasion resistance than an equal thickness of PVC. Plus, PPO,
which has a glass transition temperature of 212 C, has already passed the industry's 110
C thermal tests for Class B wire. The confidence is that the material will soon pass 125 C
tests as well.
The PPO weight advantage over PVC makes a strong case for its use in reducing the
weight in wiring harnesses. The greater savings come from the better performance of
PPO versus PVC. PPO, being thinner, reduces the overall size of the wire by 25%. This
also reduces the harness bundle size.
Table 4.17-5: Mass Reduction Ideas Selected for Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection
Subsystem
G3
•£
CD
18
Subsystem
01
Sub- Subsystem
00
Subsystem Sub- Subsystem Descripton
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Mass- Red ucdon Ideas
Seteced for De:ail
EvaJuaion
Aluminum wire
GE™ PPO Sheathing
Steel Brkts to
Composite
PolyQne© composite
brkts
3M Glass Bubbles©
composite brkts
Flatwireform Axon
Cable
4.17.2 Secondary Mass Reduction / Compounding
Table 4.17-6 contains a summary of the calculated mass reduction and cost impact for
each sub-subsystem evaluated. This project recorded a system mass reduction of 8.47 kg
(25.2%) at a cost decrease of $61.44 ($7.26 per kg). Furthermore, the contribution of the
electrical distribution and electronic control system to the overall vehicle mass reduction
was 0.35%. There are no compounding mass reductions for this system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 786
Table 4.17-6: Sub-Subsystem Mass Reduction and Cost Impact for Electrical Wiring and Circuit
Protection Subsystem
Ul
•-=:
=3
ta
13
13
18
13
13
13
IS
18
CO
tr
en
*<
3
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
0)
c
o-
•-=:
i
1
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
Description
Electrical Wiring and Circuit Protection Subsystem
Front End and Engine Compartment Wiring
Instrument Panel Harness
Body and Rear End Wiring
Trailer Tow Wiring
Battery Cables
Load Compartment Fuse Box / Passive
Interior & Console wiring
Frt & Rear door harness
Net Value of Mass Reduction
Mass
Reduction
New Tech
"kg" ID
1.50
1.70
0.954
1.42
0503
0274
0.667
1.45
8.47
(Decrease)
Mass
Reduction
Comp
"kg" ID
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mass
Reduction
Total
"kg" (i>
1.60
1.70
0954
1-42
0.503
0274
0.667
145
8.47
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
New Tech
"$" (2)
S15.34
S1591
5937
S13.91
S694
-SO 80
S0.77
SO.OO
$61.44
(Decrease)
Cost
Impact
Comp
"*"»
$0.00
SO 00
5000
5000
5000
$000
$0.00
$000
$0.00
Cost
Impact
Total
"S" B
S15.34
51591
S937
51391
S6.94 I
-sb".8d"
SO 77
SO.OO
$61.44
Cost/
Kilogram
Total
"S/kg"
SW25
$934
5932
5932
S13 n
-$292
$1 15
$0.00
$7.26
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
Total
0 06%
0 07%
004%
0 Ob'o
002%
001%
003%
006%
0.35%
(1) "+" - mass decrease, "•" - mass increase
(2) "*" = cost decrease, "-" - cost increase
4.17.3 Electrical System Material Analysis
A material breakdown for the base Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
and for the light weighted and compounded Transmission System is provided in Figure
4.17-4. The "Copper" content category was reduced by 25.7%, while "Aluminum" and
the "Other" category increased by 17.7% and 7.7%, respectively.
-------
Baseline Electrical Distribution and
Electronic Control System
Electrical System Material
Analysis
* •!. stee
1.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
33.3%
33.7%
31.9%
0.399
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
11.184
11.310
10.701
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Copper
9. Other
I
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 787
Total Electrical Distribution and
Electronic Control System
Electrical System Material
Analysis
0.2%
0.0%
17.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
34.4%
8.0%
39.6%
0.060
0.000
4.448
0.000
0.000
0.000
8.653
2.005
9.961
Material Categories:
1. Steel & Iron
2. H.S. Steel
3. Aluminum
4. Magnesium
5. Foam/Carpet
6. Rubber
7. Plastic
8. Copper
9. Other
100%
33.595 TOTAL
100%
25.127 TOTAL
Figure 4.17-4: Calculated Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System Baseline Material
and Total Material Content
Most of the copper and the overall weight was reduced due to the wiring being converted
to aluminum.
4.18 Body and Frame Systems
For the EDAG analysis, the Body and Frame systems were evaluated together for many
of the CAE analyses. Therefore results for both these vehicle systems are included
together within this section. Also included are closures and bumper subsystems.
For some minor components (e.g. wheelhouse panel liners, body debris/protection
shields, tow provisions, etc) within the Body Group A system, FEV completed the mass
reduction and cost analyses. These components are not included in the EDAG presented
mass and cost numbers below, though are included in the final system and vehicle values.
One assembly, the Instrument Panel Cross-Member Beam Assembly (IP XMbr Beam
Assembly) was evalauated by both FEV [Section 4.3 Body System Group -B- (Interior)]
and EDAG (Section 4.18 Body and Frame) The FEV evalaution considered magnesium;
EDAG considered aluminum. For the primary vehicle solution the magnesium IP XMbr
Beam Assembly was selected over aluminum due to its' superior dampening qualities.
The estimated mass reduction was near the same (5.5 kg Mag. versus 5.8 kg Al.) with a
cost premium of $20.14 for the magnesium versus aluminum beam. The IP XMbr
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
JuneS, 2015
Page 788
Beam Assembly values captured in the EDAG analysis below are for reference only.
They are not included in the final vehicle solution.
The results are presented in the order the work was completed following the four-phase
methodology as discussed in Section2.3.
4.18.1 Phase 1: Silverado 2011 Baseline Generation Results
As part of the Phase 1 work (Figure 4.18-1), system and subsystem masses were
recorded during the teardown and FEA model creation. Component materials and gauges
were determined and used to support the construction of the CAE models. As part of the
last step in Phase 1, FEA Model Validation, CAE models where compared and correlated
to physical parts using torsion and bending stiffness measurements.
Output
Phase 1:
Data, Loadcase and Baseline Generation for Silverado
1 Silverado 2011
Baseline Generation
Tear Down
Information
Partial Scanning
t Initial FE Model
> Establish \^
Baseline ^
Criteria f
Scan Data
EDAG CAE Modeling
Guidelines
Analysis load cases
Baseline criteria
FEA Model
Validation
4
Physical Body-
in-Prime(BIP)
Testing
NVH and
Stiffness
results
correlation
EDAG Experience In Virtual Validation and Model Generation
White Light Scan White Light Scan Tear ^a''^
Tear Down Down
Software
1
Phase 2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
> Crash FEA
Model Build
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA Model
1
w Crash FEA N
^ model
' Comparison ^
Physical Vehicle
Crash
Crash results
Comparison
> Define Crash ^
Comparison
Factors j
A
Intrusion Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA LS-Dyna EOAG Results
Software for Ootistruct Database and
Model Quality Tools
Check
Figure 4.18-1: Project Tasks Phase 1 and Phase 2
4.18.1.1 Baseline Component Weights, Materials and Gauges
Following completion of the Phase 1 teardown and CAE modeling building, the mass for
each baseline component and assembly included in the body and frame analysis were
captured (Table 4.18-1).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 789
Table 4.18-1: Mass of Baseline Body and Frame Components and Assemblies
K Silverado Model
System
Box Assembly Pick-Up
Frame Assembly
Cabin
Panel Fender Outer LH
Panel Fender Outer RH
Radiator Structure
IP XMbr Beam Assembly
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Sub-Total
Bumper Front
Bumper Rear
Hood Assembly without Hinges
Door Assembly Front LH
Door Assembly Front RH
Door Assembly Rear LH
Door Assembly Rear RH
Cargo Box Gate
Sub-Total
Total Mass
Baseline Model Mass
(Kg)
108.3
242.0
207.2
14.9
14.0
12.9
12.1
12.1
623.5
28.5
19.9
22.7
29.0
28.9
22.0
22.2
18.8
192.0
815.5
Figure 4.18-2 and Figure 4.18-3 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
baseline frame, respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 790
I960
2718
2476
2735
2993
3251
3509
3767
4025
4284
4542
4800
I
Figure 4.18-2: Gauge Map of Baseline Frame (mm)
Figure 4.18-3: Material Map of Baseline Frame
Figure 4.18-4 and Figure 4.18-5 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
baseline cabin, respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 791
Figure 4.18-4: Gauge Map of Baseline Cabin (mm)
Figure 4.18-5: Material Map of Baseline Cabin
Figure 4.18-6 and Figure 4.18-7 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
baseline cargo box, respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 792
Figure 4.18-6: Gauge Map of Baseline Cargo Box
300 MPa
Figure 4.18-7: Material Map of Baseline Cargo Box
Figure 4.18-9 and Figure 4.18-10 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
baseline front bumper, respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 793
Figure 4.18-8: Gauge Map of Baseline Front Bumper (mm)
370 MPa
Plastic ^ ^^
420 MPa
Figure 4.18-9: Material Map of Baseline Front Bumper
Figure 4.18-10 and Figure 4.18-11 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
baseline rear bumper, respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 794
1.44000
1.49000
1.58000
2.98000
3.61000
3.98000
Figure 4.18-10: Gauge Map of Baseline Rear Bumper (mm)
300 MPa
Plastic
Figure 4.18-11: Material Map of Baseline Rear Bumper
Figure 4.18-12 and Figure 4.18-13 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
baseline closures (doors, hood and tailgate), respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 795
Figure 4.18-12: Gauge Map of Baseline Closures (mm)
Figure 4.18-13: Material Map of Baseline Closures
Figure 4.18-14 and Figure 4.18-15 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
baseline Instrument Panel (IP) cross member, respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 796
Figure 4.18-14: Gauge Map of Baseline IP Cross Member (mm)
300 MPa
Figure 4.18-15: Material Map of Baseline IP Cross Member
Figure 4.18-16 and Figure 4.18-17 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
baseline radiator support (structure, extra cabin support) respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 797
Figure 4.18-16: Gauge Map of Baseline Radiator Support (mm)
J
Figure 4.18-17: Gauge Map of Baseline Radiator Support (mm)
4.18.1.2
Baseline FEA Model Validation - NVH Results
The following section contains torsional and bending stiffness comparisons between
actual vehicle measurements and EDAG's baseline CAE models. The frame, cabin and
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 798
cargo box were analyzed separately and then the body on frame. The criterion for
acceptance was the CAE NVH model results could not be less than 5 percent of the actual
test results. The CAE NVH results however could be higher than the test results as
greater stiffness values were considered acceptable.
Frame Correlation Summary
The correlations of the CAE test results of the frame NVH load cases are shown in Table
4.18-2. The data in the table shows the initial FE model correlated well with the test
vehicle and thus was qualified as EDAG CAE baseline model for the remaining NVH
load cases.
Table 4.18-2: Frame NVH Model Correlation Comparison with Test Data
Description
Stiffness
(KN*m/rad)
Bending Stiffness
(N/mm)
nments
Actual Test Results 180
(Frame)
EDAG CAE Model 190.3
Baseline Frame
Percentage of CAE Model 105.7%
to Actual Test Results
3,070 Physical Test of 201 1
Silverado
2,983 CAE Model of 20 11
Silverado Frame same
configuration as Test
Vehicle
97.2% Model Correlation
Cabin Correlation Summary
The correlation of the CAE test results of the cabin NVH load cases are shown in Table
4.18-3. The data shows the initial FE model correlated well with the test vehicle and thus
was qualified as EDAG CAE baseline model for the remaining NVH load cases.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 799
Table 4.18-3: Cabin NVH Model Correlation Comparison with Test Data
Description
Torsion Bending
Stiffness Stiffness
(KN*m/rad) (N/mm)
Comments
Actual Test Results (Cabin)
EDAG CAE Model Baseline
Cabin
1,020
1,021.5
7,217
7,060
Physical Test of 201 1 Silverado
CAE Model of 2011 Silverado
Cabin same configuration as Test
Vehicle
Percentage of CAE Model to
actual Test Results
97.8%
Model Correlation
Cargo Box NVH Data
No experimental NVH data was available for the standalone cargo box. This limited the
cargo box CAE model validation to material gauges and mass comparisons to the actual
vehicle cargo box. In addition, a review of the cargo box model NVH results (Table
4.18-4) was conducted by the internal team to verify the values were subjectively
reasonable. The cargo box was included in the overall body and frame NVH comparison
analyses (Table 4.18-5) supporting the cargo box model validation.
Table 4.18-4: Cargo Box NVH Model Results
Torsion
Study Description Stiffness
(KN*m/rad)
EDAG CAE Model 21Q8
Baseline Cargo Box
Bending
Stiffness Comments
(N/mm)
2 324 0 CAE Model of 2007 Silverado Box
same configuration as Test Vehicle
Body on Frame Correlation Summary
The results of the NVH simulations were compared to the 2011 Silverado actual test
results.
The correlation of the CAE test results of the EOF NVH load cases are shown in Table
4.18-5 along with the actual test results of the 2011 Silverado vehicle. The data in the
table shows the initial FE model correlated within the test results range and thus was
qualified as the EDAG CAE baseline model for the remaining NVH load cases.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 800
Table 4.18-5: EOF NVH Model Correlation Comparison with Test Data
«, . t_* I VI ** I VI I *h^l«l III IW*^»^» t—f**rt t\A I I I Vf A^ril ill l^ww rf«fc ,.
Description ,„*,*.„ ,__Jt ,*,,.„.„ 4 Comments
Actual Test Results
(2011 EOF)
Torsion Stiffness
(KN*m/rad)
Bending Stiffness
• (N/mm)
296
5,602
Physical Test of 2011
Silverado
EDAG CAE Model
Baseline EOF
282.3
5,337
CAE Model of 2011
Silverado Cabin
same configuration
as Test Vehicle
Percentage of CAE
Model to actual Test
Results
95.4%
95.3%
Model Correlation
4.18.2 Phase 2: Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
As part of the Phase 2 tasks, actual vehicle crash data was used to further refine the CAE
models (Figure 4.18-18). Once the CAE models were with the acceptable range, as
compared to actual test data, additional crash load cases were run. The crash data from all
seven load cases were then used in the mass reduction optimization process.
Oat*. loadcase ami Dateline Generation tor Silverado
Ph»*t2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
Input
Silverado 2011
Baseline Generation
Tear Down
Information
Partial Scanning
Establish
Baseline
Criteria
FEA Model
Validation
Crash FEA
Model Build
Crash FEA
model
Define Crash
Comparison
Factors
Output muni FE Model
Scan Data
EDAG CAE Modeling
Guidelines
Analysis load cases
Baseline criteria
Physical Body-
in-Prime (RIP)
Testing
NVH and
Stiffness
results
correlation
EDAG Experience In Virtu*! V«lldilton and Model Generation
White Light Sc»n
Tear Down
White Light Scan Tear
Down
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
EOAG Results
Database and
Tools
Figure 4.18-18: Crash FEA Model Comparison
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 801
4.18.2.1 Crash FEA Model Comparison
The LS-DYNA model results (which are a hybrid of 2007 and 2011 vehicles) have been
compared against three NHTSA physical tests as detailed below.
1) FMVSS 208—35mph, Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)
2) FMVSS 214—38.5mph, MDB Side Impact (US SINCAP)
3) FMVSS 214—20mph, 5th Percentile Pole Side Impact
The details of these three load cases and comparisons of the test results and CAE
simulations are explained in the following section.
4.18.2.1.1 FMVSS 208—35mph Flat Frontal Crash (US NCAP)
Model Setup
The frontal impact test of FMVSS 208 (US NCAP) undertaken by the NHTSA, is a full
frontal flat barrier test at a vehicle speed of 35 mph (56 km/h). The corresponding
NHTSA Test No. 7121[50] of a 2011 Silverado was referenced to obtain initial crash setup
details. Image 4.18-1 shows the FMVSS 208 frontal impact test setup of a 2011
Silverado.
Image 4.18-1: FMVSS 208 35 Flat Frontal Crash Test Setup
(Source: EDAG)
50 NHTSA Test No. 7121, for 2011 GM Silverado 35 flat frontal crash.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 802
The CAE model was setup as defined in the FMVSS 208 regulation. The LS-DYNA
model was created to represent the exact test initial setup, such as vehicle velocity of
35mph against a flat rigid wall barrier.
To measure passenger compartment structure integrity, data analysis points as shown in
Figure 4.18-19 were measured using the IIHS measurement protocol.
Figure 4.18-19: Intrusion Measurement Locations
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 150 milliseconds (ms) analysis time
frame.
Deformation Mode Comparison
There are two NHTSA tests for this configuration on the Silverado:
Test 7121 2011 4WD V8 Silverado 1500
Test 5877 2007 2WD V8 Silverado 1500
Global vehicle deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to
the test photographs of the deformation modes of the 2011 Silverado. Figure 4.18-20
through Figure 4.18-23 show different views of the comparative deformation at 150ms
(end of crash) for the 2011 Silverado versus the EDAG baseline model.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 803
Figure 4.18-20: Deformation Mode Comparison- Right Side View at 150ms
(Source: EDAG)
'* (' -*.
Figure 4.18-21: Deformation Mode Comparison- Front View at 150ms
(Source: EDAG)
Figure 4.18-22: Deformation Mode Comparison - Bottom View at 150ms
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 804
Figure 4.18-23: Deformation Mode Comparison - ISO View at 150ms
(Source: EDAG)
Figure 4.18-24 through Figure 4.18-26 show different views of the comparative
deformation at 150ms (end of crash) for the 2011 Silverado versus the EDAG baseline
model.
Figure 4.18-24: Deformation Mode Comparison- Right Side View at 150ms
(Source: EDAG)
Figure 4.18-25: Deformation Mode Comparison- Front View at 150ms
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 805
Figure 4.18-26: Deformation Mode Comparison - ISO View at 150ms
(Source: EDAG)
Body Pulse Comparison
Figure 4.18-27 shows a schematic representation of the location of the pulse data
measurement (accelerometer data number #1 and #2) on the test vehicle. The vehicle
velocity was measured on the CAE model at the same location (rear-seat cross member).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 806
VEHICLE ACCELEROMETER LOCATION
^SSfvEHS AND DATA SUMMARY
\^_L
X ••]
^1 5 '
1
--[-4 <
i
~|-
' ,
•J
\
J
i-i
0.
F
• _
I i_
X
CENT
.
— - — 7"
1 ^-*-
2
;RUNE / 1— l
CY — \i-«"
NT
, 1
•
i
r- 1
r |
A 1
' |
^_
8
ENGINE —'
I
TOP VIEW
ACCELEROMETER
COORDINATE SYSTEM
(POSITIVE DIRECTION SHOWN)
REAR SEAT CUSHION
ASSY. FRONT ATTACHMENT
BRACKET SUPPORT
ENGINE
BOTTOM OF
OIL PAN
DISC BRAKE
CALIPER
LEFT SIDE VIEW
Figure 4.18-27: Location of Vehicle Pulse Measurement
(Source: NHTSA)
The vehicle acceleration pulse (in G's) calculated by averaging the driver side and the
passenger side of the vehicle are shown in Figure 4.18-28.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 807
SILVERADO FRONTAL ACCELERATION
Time(s)
Figure 4.18-28: CAE Baseline Model vs. Test
SILVERADO FRONTAL VELOCITY
Time (s)
Figure 4.18-29: CAE Baseline Model vs. Test
Dynamic Crush and Intrusions
Maximum dynamic crush is the total vehicle body deformation which occurs when the
velocity of the vehicle (at the lower rocker in this case) is at zero before rebound. The
initial static crush space of the EDAG baseline model can be estimated from the model as
shown in Figure 4.18-30. If the front space can be crushed to 80% then this gives a total
static crush space of approximately 595 mm.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 808
79mm
Figure 4.18-30: Available Engine Room Crush Space before Crash Event
SILVERADO FRONTAL DISPLACEMENT
T«M.fl077 -Z007 13WO)
TmlTlZl -201! (AWT»
Baseline
Time (s)
Figure 4.18-31: CAE Baseline Model vs. Test
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 809
Figure 4.18-31 shows the maximum vehicle crush of 655.3mm for the baseline model
compared to the test results range of 655.8 mm and 717.7 mm. A summary of
performance indicators of the baseline model for the flat frontal crash loadcase is listed in
Table 4.18-6 and Table 4.18-7.
No.
Table 4.18-6: Pulse and Dynamic Crush Measurements
Frontal Crash
Measurements
Silverado Tests
2011 GM Silverado CAE
Baseline Model
1
2
3
Dynamic Crush (mm)
T (to zero) (ms)
Pulse (G's)
655.8-717.7
75.0-80.5
37.7-48.1
655.5
75.9
37.9
Table 4.18-7: Compartment Dash Intrusion Measurements
No.
2
3
4
5
Intrusion
Door Opening
Driver Footrest
Driver Toe Pan Left
Driver Toe Pan Center
Driver Toe Pan Right
Tests (mm)
R - 4
no data
no data
no data
no data
Baseline (mm)
6.3
31.9
34.5
43.7
44.6
Table 4.18-7 lists the compartment dash intrusions measured at locations shown in
Figure 4.18-18. Based on the analysis of the vehicle pulse, deformation mode, dynamic
crush, and compartment intrusions, this model was established as EDAG's baseline target
for further frontal offset loadcase iterations.
Summary of Model Performance
The lack of detailed test data complicates the assessment of the performance; however,
on a global level (velocity and displacement) the results are acceptable for the purpose of
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 810
the study performed here. Section 7.2.6 details some suggested upgrades to the LS-
DYNA model if further studies are performed in the future.
4.18.2.1.2 FMVSS 214—38.5mph. MDB Side Impact (US SINCAP)
Model Setup
The baseline crash model was compared using another crash loadcase of FMVSS214 side
impact where a moving deformable barrier (MDB) with a mass of 1,370kg impacted the
vehicle on the driver side with a velocity of 38.5mph (61.9 km/h) at 518 mm rearward
from front axle. The corresponding NHTSA Test No. 7102 of a 2011 2WD Silverado was
referenced to obtain initial crash setup and results. The CAE model was setup as defined
in the FMVSS 214 regulation. Full vehicle mass, impact velocity, vehicle height, and
barrier position were calibrated accordingly. A typical FMVSS 214 side impact setup
with MDB is shown in Figure 4.18-32. The model does not include occupants or
restraints, however it did include the occupant masses, which will influence the local
accelerations and velocities in the door/B-Pillar.
Figure 4.18-32: FMVSS214, 38.5MDB Side Impact CAE Model Setup
(Source: EDAG)
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 200ms analysis time frame. The
necessary results were analyzed and compared with the test results accordingly.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 811
Deformation Mode Comparison
Side-structure deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to
the test photographs of deformation modes. Figure 4.18-33 shows the pre-crash
conditions for comparison purposes and Figure 4.18-34 through Figure 4.18-36 show
the comparative deformation modes at 200ms (end of crash) in different views. By
comparing the deformation modes, it can be observed the EDAG baseline model shows
similar deformation modes.
Figure 4.18-33: Side Impact Comparison- Pre-Crash
(Source: EDAG)
Figure 4.18-34: Side Impact Comparison - Post-Crash
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 812
• Post Test \
>LM^f
• • • W m m m
Figure 4.18-35: Door Deformation Mode Comparison
(Source: EDAG)
Figure 4.18-36: Rear Door Aperture Deformation Mode Comparison
(Source: EDAG)
B-Pillar Velocity Comparison
The side impact characteristics of the baseline model were compared with the B-Pillar
movement to analyze the impact pattern on the major structure that was impacted directly
by the barrier. For this purpose the velocity of the side structure was measured on B-
Pillar at 920 mm from the ground, as shown in Figure 4.18-37.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 813
Measurement location on
B-Pillaratz = 920mm
Figure 4.18-37: B-Pillar Velocity Measurement Location
(Source: EDAG)
The B-Pillar velocity is plotted with respect to that of the test results. Figure 4.18-38
shows the side structure movement trend by B-Pillar velocity. It is observed that the
baseline model shows a reasonable trend relative to the test result.
B-Pillat (Mid Left) - YVelocity
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Figure 4.18-38: B-Pillar Velocity
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 814
Intrusion Comparison
Another critical parameter to be compared for the MDB side impact case is the Side
Structure intrusion at levels 1 through 5 of the driver-side compartment (Figure 4.18-39).
The compartment structure intrusions were specified as intrusion numbers (Figure
4.18-40). The intrusion numbers represent the relative displacement with respect to an
un-deformed driver-side structure. The accuracy of the intrusions was maintained by
using a local vehicle coordinate system at a point on the passenger-side structure. The
intrusions were measured at a longitudinal section of 1200L as shown by vertical red line
in Figure 4.18-39. It represents the intrusion characteristics of B-Pillar areas. Figure
4.18-40 shows a section-cut view of the B-pillar intrusion at 1200L section. The gray
contour represents the un-deformed structure and the blue contour represents the
deformed structure.
•i»o-i«!-«:-Me-»K-«K -wo-iM e IN
Al Measurements Slwun n mm
LEFT SIDE VIEW
Measurements are taken -Aith vehicle in the as tested condition.
Measurments taken 900 mm right of impact reference.
All measurements bekjA' in mm.
Level
1
2
3
4
•'•
Measurement Description
Sill Top
Occupant H-Point
MdDoor
Window Sill
Winda-.-Tof,
Height Above
Ground
406
851
82!
1171
1774
All Dimensions shown in millimeters
Figure 4.18-39: Side Structure Exterior Measuring Location and Points (Source NHTSA)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 815
Baseline
Original Position
Figure 4.18-40: Side Structure Deformation Section Cut at 1200L
A summary of the relative intrusions of side structure of the baseline model are shown in
Table 4.18-8.
P
Table 4.18-8: Baseline, Relative Intrusions at 1200L for FMVSS 214
Measured Location* Test (mm) Baseline (mm)
=1
Level-5
Level-4
Level-3
Level-2
Level- 1
* All measured points are taken
21
188
277
309
333
at the vehicle exterior point
22
169
289
335
321
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 816
Summary of Model Performance
The velocity profile has been compared at the B-Pillar and show an acceptable level of
performance compared to the test data. The LS-Dyna model intrusions compare well to
the model.
4.18.2.1.3 FMVSS 214—20 5th Percentile Pole Side Impact
Model Setup
The baseline crash model was compared using another side crash loadcase; of FMVSS
214 5th Percentile pole impact with pole barrier. In this loadcase, the vehicle is moved
against a 2144 mm tall static rigid pole at an angle of 15thwith a velocity of 20 mph (32.2
km/h).The corresponding NHTSA Test No.7101[51] of a 2011 2WD Silverado was
referenced to obtain initial crash setup and results. The CAE model was setup as defined
in the FMVSS 214 regulation. Full vehicle mass, impact velocity, vehicle height, and
barrier position for 5th Percentile occupant condition were calibrated accordingly. A
typical FMVSS 214 side impact setup with pole barrier is shown in Figure 4.18-41
andFigure 4.18-42.
Figure 4.18-41: FMVSS 214 5th Percentile Pole Side Impact CAE Model Setup
(Source: EDAG)
51 NHTSA Test No. 7101 for 2011 GM Silverado 20 pole side impact.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 817
Figure 4.18-42: FMVSS 214 5th Percentile Pole Side Impact CAE Model Setup
(Source: EDAG)
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 200 ms analysis time frame. The
necessary results were analyzed and compared with the test results accordingly.
Deformation Mode Comparison
Side-structure deformation and vehicle crash behaviors were analyzed and compared to
the test photographs of deformation modes. Figure 4.18-43 shows the pre-crash
conditions for comparison purposes and Figure 4.18-44 through Figure 4.18-46 show
the comparative deformation modes at 200ms (end of crash) in different views. By
comparing the deformation modes, it can be observed the EDAG baseline model shows
similar deformation modes.
Figure 4.18-43: Side Pole Impact - Pre-Crash
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 818
Figure 4.18-44: Side Pole Impact - Post-Crash Top View at 200ms
(Source: EDAG)
Figure 4.18-45: Side Pole Impact - Post-Crash Side View at 200ms
(Source: EDAG)
Figure 4.18-46: Deformation Mode Bottom View at 200ms
(Source: EDAG)
B-Pillar Velocity Comparison
The side impact characteristics of the baseline model were compared with the side
structure movement to analyze the impact pattern on the major structure where the
vehicle impacted directly on the barrier. For this purpose the velocity of the side structure
was measured on B-Pillar at 920 mm from the ground as shown in Figure 4.18-47.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 819
Measurement location on
B-Pillaratz = 920mm
Figure 4.18-47: B-Pillar Velocity Measurement Location
The B-Pillar velocity is plotted with respect to that of the test results. Figure 4.18-48
shows the side structure movement trend by B-Pillar velocity. It is observed that the
baseline model shows a reasonable correlation over the test result.
B-Pillar (Mid Left) - YVelocity
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2
Figure 4.18-48: B-Pillar Velocity (m/s)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 820
Intrusion Comparison
Another critical parameter to be compared for the pole-side impact case is the Side
Structure intrusion at the levels #1 through #5 of the driver-side compartment (
Figure 4.18-49). The compartment structure intrusions were specified as intrusion
numbers (Figure 4.18-50). The intrusion numbers represent the relative displacement
with respect to an un-deformed driver-side structure. The accuracy of the intrusions was
maintained by using a local vehicle coordinate system at a point on the passenger-side
structure. The intrusions were measured at a longitudinal section of OL as shown by
vertical red line in
Figure 4.18-49. It represents the intrusion characteristics of B-Pillar areas. Figure
4.18-50 shows a section-cut view at OL section. The gray contour represents the un-
deformed structure and the blue contour represents the deformed structure.
Figure 4.18-49: Side Structure Exterior Measuring Locations and Points (Source NHTSA)
_L-l4-!-UL4~L
4-- _l_ -1_._^_
,,-:.!
Ml IJ
I I I
I I I
— »:•_•! , - — —1 1 I
1500 1200 900 600 300
300 600 900 1200 1500
Level
*
4
3
T
1
Measurement
Description
Window Top
Window Sill
Mid Door
Occupant H-Poiut
Sill Top
Height
Above
Ground
1750
11SO
S40
910
455
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 821
Baseline
Original Position
s
Figure 4.18-50: Side Structure Deformation Section Cut at OL
A summary of the relative intrusions of side structure of the baseline model are shown in
Table 4.18-9.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 822
Table 4.18-9: Baseline, Relative Intrusions at OL for Side Pole Impact
Measured Location*
Level-5
Level-4
Level-3
Level-2
Level- 1
* All measured points are taken
297
530
588
583
527
at the vehicle exterior point
241
492
546
553
510
Summary of Model Performance
The LS-DYNA model shows intrusions approximately 10% less than the 2011 NHTSA
test. Possible explanations include:
• Lack of a damage and failure model in the front screen (windshield)
• Weld or material failure (not possible to quantify if this was significant from the
data contained in the NHTSA report)
• Differences in the 2007 - 2011 Cab
The same limitations exist for the optimized model so the performance here is acceptable
for the purpose of the study.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 823
4.18.3 Baseline Crash Results
Phase 1:
Data, Loadcase and Baseline Generation for Silverado
Phase 2:
Definition of Comparison Factors for Full Vehicle Crash
Silverado 2011
Baseline Generation
Establish
Baseline
Criteria
FEA Model
Validation
Crash FEA
Model Build
Crash FEA
model
Comparison
Define Crash
Comparison
Factors
Tear Down
Information
Partial Scanning
Scan Data Physical Body-
EDAG CAE Modeling in-Prime (BIP)
Guidelines Testing
Output
Initial FE Model
Analysis load cases
Baseline criteria
NVH and
Stiffness
results
correlation
EDAG CAE
Guidelines
Physical Vehicle
Crash
Initial Crash
Vehicle FEA Model
Crash results
Comparison
Intrusion Values
Crash Pulse
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
White Light Scan White Light Scan Tear
Tear Down Down
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA
Software for
Model Quality
Check
LS-Dyna
Optistruct
EDAG Results
Database and
Tools
Figure 4.18-51: Crash Comparison Factors
The baseline crash results of the FMVSS 208 flat frontal, FMVSS 214 MDB side impact,
and FMVSS214 Pole side impact loadcases were obtained during the crash model
correlation stage (see analysis in Section 4.18.2.1.3: FMVSS 214—20 5th Percentile
Pole Side Impact). The correlated crash model became the baseline crash model for the
remaining loadcases. By using the correlated baseline model, the remaining four crash
loadcases (listed below and analyzed in the following sections) were simulated to obtain
the baseline performance results.
1) IIHS—40 mph, ODB Frontal Crash
2) IIHS—31 mph, MDB Side Impact
3) FMVSS 301—50 mph, MDB Rear Impact
4) Roof-Crush (utilizing IIHS roof-crush criteria)
4.18.3.1 IIHS—40 mph ODB Frontal Crash
Model Setup
The model was setup in line with the IIHS moderate offset crash protocol (40% offset
into a deformable barrier at 40 mph). The frontal impact model setup with ODB is shown
in Figure 4.18-52.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 824
Figure 4.18-52: IIHS ODB Frontal Crash Baseline Model Setup
To measure passenger compartment structure integrity, data analysis points as shown in
Figure 4.18-53 were measured using the IIHS measurement protocol.
Figure 4.18-53: Intrusion Measurement Locations
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 150ms analysis time frame (the intrusion
values reported are taken at end time state).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 825
Deformation Mode
The post-crash vehicle deformation modes of the CAE simulation are shown in Figure
4.18-54 through Figure 4.18-58.
Figure 4.18-54: IIHS Frontal Baseline Deformation Mode - Front View
Figure 4.18-55: IIHS Frontal Baseline Deformation Mode - Top View
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 826
Figure 4.18-56: IIHS Frontal Baseline Deformation Mode - Isometric View
Figure 4.18-57: IIHS Frontal Baseline Deformation Mode - Left Side View
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 827
Figure 4.18-58: IIHS Frontal Baseline Deformation Mode - Bottom View
Body Pulse, Dynamic Crush, and Intrusion
The vehicle velocity was measured in the x-direction at left and right side of the rear seat
cross members and differentiated to obtain the vehicle acceleration in terms of crash
pulse (in G's). The left-hand acceleration was used for the vehicle crash pulse. The
vehicle crash acceleration pulse is shown in Figure 4.18-59.
SILVERADO FRONTAL ACCELERATION
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time [s]
Figure 4.18-59: IIHS Frontal Baseline Vehicle Pulse
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 828
SILVERADO FRONTAL DISPLACEMENT
„ 120°
£ 1000
I 800
600
400
- Baseline
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
Time [s]
Figure 4.18-60: IIHS Frontal Baseline Dynamic Crush with Barrier Deformation
The structural performance (in terms of intrusions) is presented in Figure 4.18-61 and
Table 4.18-11 as per the IIHS measurement protocols.
IIHS Structural Rating
Footrest
LeftTp
CenterTp
RightTp
Right IP
Figure 4.18-61: IIHS Frontal Dash Panel Intrusion Plot
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 829
A summary of the performance indicators of the baseline model for the offset frontal
crash loadcase is listed in Table 4.18-10 and Table 4.18-11.
Table 4.18-10: IIHS Frontal Pulse and Dynamic Crush
No.
1
2
3
Frontal Crash Measurements
Pulse (g)
1st Peak / Highest Peak
Time To Zero Velocity (ms)
Dynamic Crush Max. (mm)
Silverado CAE Baseline
Average
6.23/50.3
110.0
1317.2
Table
No.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
4.18-11: IIHS Frontal Compartment Dash Intrusion
Intrusion
Driver Footrest
Driver Toe Pan
Driver Toe Pan
Driver Toe Pan
Left IP
Right IP
Door Aperture
Baseline (mm)
88.1
Left 88.6
Center 120.7
Right 66.0
21.6
3.3
38.3
Based on the analysis of the deformation mode, dynamic crush, and compartment
intrusions, this model was established as the EDAG targets for further frontal offset
loadcase iterations.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 830
4.18.3.2 IIHS - Slmph, MDB Side Impact
Model Setup
The model was setup in line with the IIHS side crash protocol (1500 kg Moving
deformable barrier at 50 km/h)). The side impact model setup with the positioned MDB
is shown in Figure 4.18-62.
Figure 4.18-62: IIHS MDB Side Impact CAE Model Setup
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 200ms analysis time frame.
Deformation Mode
As per the baseline model requirements, side-structure deformation and vehicle crash
behaviors were analyzed. Figure 4.18-63 and Figure 4.18-64 show the pre and post-
crash conditions. Figure 4.18-64 shows the deformation mode at 200 ms (end of crash).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 831
Figure 4.18-63: IIHS Side Impact - Pre-Crash
Figure 4.18-64: IIHS Side Impact - Post-Crash
Figure 4.18-65 shows the door deformation modes at front door and rear door rear edges
at 200ms (end of crash).
\ XL
Figure 4.18-65: IIHS Side Impact - Post-Crash
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 832
B-Pillar Velocity
The side impact characteristics of the IIHS loadcase was recorded for the B-Pillar
movement to analyze the impact pattern on the major structure that was impacted directly
by the barrier. For this purpose the velocity of the side structure was measured on B-
Pillar at 920 mm from the ground as shown in Figure 4.18-66.
Measurement location on
B-Pillar at z = 920 mm
Figure 4.18-66: B-Pillar Velocity Measurement Location
The B-Pillar velocity is plotted for 200ms. Figure 4.18-67 shows the side structure
movement trend by B-Pillar velocity.
-------
14
12
10
„ 8
S
£• 6
'o
o
-2
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 833
B-Pillar (Mid-Left) - YVelocity
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Time (s)
0.12
0.14
0.16
Figure 4.18-67: B-Pillar Velocity
- Baseline
0.18
0.2
Structural Intrusion
The IIHS side protocol defines the measurement of the intrusion relative to a plane at the
seat centerline. A single intrusion value is reported for the two tests conducted on the
Silverado in the 2007-2013 timeframe as detailed below.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 834
Intrusions measured from Seat Center Line
Minimum survival space
Baseline
Original Position
Figure 4.18-68: IIHS Side Intrusion Zones
Table 4.18-12: Side Structure Intrusion with Survival Space Rating
Test
CES0903 2007Silverado
CES09212010Silverado
CAE Baseline
(cm)
+35.0
-50.0
-0.1
Rating
Poor
Acceptable
Marginal
The test results show an improvement in performance from 2007 to 2010 with the
changes implemented in the body structure during that period.
In addition to the IIHS intrusion measurement the intrusion profile (in Z) of the B-Pillar
and the side structure (in X) are monitored as detailed in Figure 4.18-69 and Figure
4.18-70. The intrusions are detailed relative to the un-deformed side structure in Table
4.18-13.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 835
Baseline
Original Position
J
n (1
Figure 4.18-69: Side Structure Deformations
,
U)
Table 4.18-13: Relative Intrusions
Level-7
Level-6
Level-5
Level-4
Level-3
Level-2
Level-1
166
299
334
351
345
333
310
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 836
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
--I l--f --
_ j__
i
— 1_.
_i _
j
—
1
/
i
-- + --i — i - - 1 —
f
i"
—
s
—
—
i
i
__i
i
i
r
*-*"
i
--i —
i
i
i_
i
i
i
- - \ - -
—
h —
p—
II
- - -| - - | 1 - - f - -
r —
--
i —
i —
r__
^~~
i
--4--I 1 -
.
-^
^^
r
— i
j
ill
- 1 — I-- + --I--
i i i i
ill
iii
Baseline
...
i
i
T
1
1
1
1
XT + - -
Ai
\i
T
i
i
i
i
-i--
--
s=-300
s=-400
s=-500
s=-600
S=-700
S=-800
s=-900
s=-1000
s=-1100
Figure 4.18-70: Side Structure Exterior Crush
4.18.3.3 FMVSS 301—SOmph MDB Rear Impact
Model Setup
The model was setup in line with the FMVSS 301 side crash protocol (1,380kg MDB at
80km/h with a 70% overlap). The rear impact model setup with the positioned MDB is
shown in Figure 4.18-71.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 837
Figure 4.18-71: Rear Impact Baseline Model Setup
The LS-DYNA simulation was carried out for a 120ms analysis time frame. FMVSS 301
test results are not available for this selected Silverado vehicle configuration.
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes of the rear-impact simulation are shown in Figure 4.18-72
through Figure 4.18-75.
The model shows that the deformation in the regions around the fuel system is controlled
with adequate protection for the tank and fuel filler.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 838
Figure 4.18-72: Deformation Mode - Left Side View
Figure 4.18-73: Deformation Mode of Rear Underbody Structure - Left Side View at 120ms
The bottom view of the rear underbody structure around the fuel tank area at the end of
the crash (120ms) is shown in Figure 4.18-74 and Figure 4.18-75.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 839
Figure 4.18-74: Deformation Mode - Bottom View at!20ms
Figure 4.18-75: Deformation Mode of Rear Underbody Structure - Bottom View at 120ms
Fuel Tank Deformation
Figure 4.18-76 shows the plastic strain distribution on the fuel tank system at the end of
the crash. It indicates no significant risk of fuel system damage as the maximum strain is
less than 10%, which is less than the expected plastic strain required to fail the tank
material.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 840
Plastic Strait
Figure 4.18-76: Fuel Tank Plastic Strain Plot of Baseline
Structural Deformation
The structural performance is monitored by deformation metrics in several zones as
detailed in Figure 4.18-77. Zones 1 to 4 are measured on the underbody with two further
measurements to monitor the deformation of the rear door aperture.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 841
Zone-3
Zone-2
Initial gapj, J,
153 mm
Zone-1
Figure 4.18-77: Rear Impact, Structural Deformation Measurement Area
The rear impact deformation measurements of the baseline model are summarized in
Table 4.18-14.
Table 4.18-14: Rear Impact Structural Performance
Under Structure Zone Deformation (mm)
Baseline
Zone-1
402.8
Zone-2
348.7
Zone-3
132.1
Zone-4
(Max.)
115.2
Beltline
2.6
Dogleg
-1.8
Door Opening (mm)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 842
4.18.3.4 FMVSS 216a—Roof Crush Resistance
Model Setup
The IIHS and FMVSS 216a roof crush resistance test determines strength of the roof
structure when loaded by a rigid platen under static loading as shown in Figure 4.18-78.
The test model is loaded and assessed as per the IIHS protocol (the largest main
differences being the loading on a single side and no internal measurement of the
occupant space reduction).
The platen is displaced in a quasi-static analysis to achieve the required 5" of
displacement and the platen force monitored. The rating criteria for the IIHS protocol are
shown in Table 4.18-15.
Table 4.18-15: Rear Impact Structural Performance
Roof Strength Rating Boundaries
SWR
>4.00
> 3.25 to < 4.00
> 2.50 to < 3.25
<2.50
Rating
Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Poor
A basic failure model was implemented for the glass to prevent unrealistic loading in the
roof crush (no data was available for the calibration of the material model). See
recommendations in Section 7.2.6.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 843
Figure 4.18-78: Roof Crush Baseline Model Setup
Deformation Mode
The roof crush deformation mode at 100ms after crush event is shown in Figure 4.18-79
through Figure 4.18-83.
Figure 4.18-79: Roof Crush Baseline after Crush View
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 844
pi. str*m (Shcn/Sdid)
Figure 4.18-80: Roof Crush Plastic Strain Areas ISO View at 100ms
ft strain (Sneil/SolMl)
000000
0.012SO
002500
0037SO
o.osooo
00(2*0
007SOO
0087SO
0.10000
I
Figure 4.18-81: Roof Crush Plastic Strain Areas Front View at 100ms
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 845
Figure 4.18-82: Roof Crush Plastic Strain Areas Side View at 100ms
Figure 4.18-83: Roof Crush Plastic Strain Areas Top View at 100ms
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 846
The ultimate performance of roof crush resistance was determined by the platen force
level over the vehicle roof structure. The force versus displacement curve of the platen is
illustrated in Figure 4.18-84 with the roof strength-to-weight ratio shown in Figure
4.18-85.
Force vs Displacement
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-ioJ
—
BaselJ
/
/
J
ne
.~s~~
-
/
X
/
/
s
^-v
r
s-/~
r
s^S*
r^
, /\
v N>
- /^
V
FM\
\ /v
Vy AJ
55 Fore
/^
r*J
e(1.5x
69.3
r
7
/
xA
UVW) =
36.1kN
) 20 40 60 80 100 120 14
8
ft
Displacement (mm)
Figure 4.18-84: Roof Crush Force vs. Displacement Plot of Baseline
-------
I3
PS
*•>
•a
12
BC
I
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 847
Strength to Weight Ratio
Baseline
v
/\
20 40 60 80
Displacement (mm)
100
120
140
Figure 4.18-85: Roof Strength to Weight Ratio
Model
Table 4.18-16: Roof Strength Summary of Baseline Model
Curb Wt. Peak Force Strength to weight
(kg) (KN) Ratio
IIHS Rating
Baseline 2,454
IIHS Test (2011) 2,341
69.3
71.8
2.9
3.13
Marginal
Marginal
Summary of Model Performance
The model performance is compared against the IIHS test performed on a 2011 Silverado
in Table 4.18-16. The results show a "marginal" rating for the structure in both cases.
4.18.4 Modularization and System Analysis Results
In Phase 3 the final data set is constructed for use in the mass reduction optimization
process. As part of the System Analysis and Definition Systems Comparison Factors
tasks (Figure 4.18-86), body closure acceptance criteria are established.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 848
Phase 3:
Modularization and System Analysis
Phase 4:
Full Vehicle Optimization
Create Silverado Modular
Systems Analysis
Systems FEA
Systems Results on
Stiffness, Crush and
Fatigue
Def. Systems
Comparison
Factors
Full Vehicle X Ootimi7ed
System
Results
Systems FEA
Models and
Comparison
Factors
Systems
Full Vehicle
and Systems
Responses
Project
Objectives
Full Vehicle
FEA
optimization
Algorithm
Optimized
Optimized
Full Vehicle
FEA Models
Final Design
Comparison
Factors for
Systems
alternatives
which meet
performance
Systems Costs
Stable
Optimization
Algorithm
FEA Models
which meet
Weight and
Costs Targets
Optimization
and
Cost/Weight
Curve
Generation
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
EDAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
To
"
Ansa Advanced
Tools ' EDAG FEA Software
Used for Model Quality
Check
Sensitivity
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
EDAG Results
Database
and Tools
Figure 4.18-86: Phase Three Task Summary
4.18.4.1 System Results and Definition of System Comparison Factors
The following section addresses the methodology for establishing the baseline closure
performance attributes. Based on EDAG's experience for closures of a similar size and
construction, along with the baseline values established in this analysis, closure targets
where established. The target values are used in the mass reduction phase of the analysis
to ensure closure mass reduction ideas do not result in performance degradation.
4.18.4.1.1 Baseline Front Door
The following loadcases were considered to analyze the front door strength.
1) Frame Lateral Rigidity (Front)
2) Frame Lateral Rigidity (Rear)
3) Beltline Strength - Compression
4) Beltline Strength - Expansive
5) Torsional Rigidity
6) Door Sag
7) Oil Canning Load Deflection
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 849
The FEA model of the front door was developed in ABAQUS non-linear solver format.
The gauge and material grade maps of the front door are provided in Figure 4.18-87 and
Figure 4.18-88.
1.8 mm
Figure 4.18-87: Gauge Map of Front Door
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 850
Figure 4.18-88: Material Grade Map of Front Door
Taking the vehicle symmetry into consideration, only the left hand (LH) side front door
FEA model was developed and the results of the right hand (RH) side front door were
assumed to be same that of LH side. The FEA model was constrained and loaded as per
the loadcase requirements. The necessary boundary conditions and loading conditions for
the above loadcases are shown in Figure 4.18-89.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 851
Lateral Rigidity
Rear 360 N
Hinges
Beltline Strength
180 N
Oil Canning
225 N
Lateral Rigidity
Front 360 N
Door Sag
,1,OOON
Torsion
Rigidity 27.1
Latch
Figure 4.18-89: Front Door Loading and Boundary Conditions
Frame rigidity analysis was carried out for two loads. One by applying a static lateral
load of 360 N at front and another by applying a static load of 360 N at rear side of the
frame. The door was constrained rigidly at the hinges Degrees of Freedom (DOF 1-6) and
latches (DOF 2, 3, 5, and 6) accordingly.
Beltline strength was calculated by simulating the static load of 180 N applied at the
middle of the beltline. The compression characteristics were studied by applying the load
towards the inboard direction of the vehicle and expansion characteristics were studied by
applying the load towards the outboard direction of the vehicle. The door was constrained
rigidly at the hinges (DOF 1-6) and latches (DOF 2, 3, 5, and 6) accordingly.
Torsional rigidity of the door was studied by applying a moment of 27.1 KN-mm at the
latch point about the axis along door longitudinal direction. The door was constrained at
the hinges (DOF 1-6) and latches (DOF 2, 3, 5, and 6) accordingly.
Door sag simulation was carried out by applying a downward vertical load of 1000 N at
the latch point. The door was constrained rigidly at the hinges using DOF 1-6 and latch
using DOF 2 only accordingly.
Oil canning load deflection is an important measure to study the door deformation due to
external pressures such as palm impression, thumb load, denting. The oil canning
simulation was carried out to obtain the allowable deflection. A rigid circular pad was
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 852
created over the outer panel of the door. The rigid pad was allowed to move towards the
door (inboard direction) by applying a load 225 N in the normal direction of the loading
area as shown in Figure 4.18-89. The door was constrained at the hinges (DOF 1-6) and
latches (DOF 2, 3, 5, and 6) accordingly.
The analysis results of the front door performance study are provided in Table 4.18-17.
Table 4.18-17: Front Door Performance Results Baseline
Target(mm) Baseline Results(mm)
Frame Lateral Rigidity (Front) <0.5 set no set
Frame Lateral Rigidity (Rear) <0.5 set no set
Beltline Strength - Compression <3.0 0.96
Beltline Strength - Expansive <3.0 0.94
Torsional Rigidity <4.0 2.98
6 Door Sag <2.0 set 0.62 set
Oil Canning Load Deflection <0.05 set no set
It is observed that, when compared to the generic door performance targets, the baseline
front door shows no significant deflections due to the frame loading and oil canning. The
baseline door deflections are within the acceptable range for the remaining loadcases.
These performance measures are considered as baseline targets for the further iterations.
4.18.4.1.2 Baseline Rear Door
In a similar approach, the FEA model was developed for rear door and performance
analysis was carried for the same type of loadcases as the front door. The gauge and
material grade maps of the rear door are provided in Figure 4.18-90 through Figure
4.18-92.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 853
1.8 mm
1.0 mm
1.1 mm
2.22 mm
1.69 mm
mm
Figure 4.18-90: Gauge Map of Rear Door
I
470
Figure 4.18-91: Gauge Map of Rear Door Hinges
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 854
DP 300/500
MS 140/270
Figure 4.18-92: Gauge Map of Rear Door
Taking the vehicle symmetry into consideration, only the left hand (LH) side rear door
FEA model was developed and the results of the right hand (RH) side rear door were
assumed to be same as the LH side. The FEA model was constrained and loaded as per
the loadcase requirements. The necessary boundary conditions and loading conditions for
the same type of rear door loadcases are shown in the following Figure 4.18-93.
-------
Lateral Rigidity
Rear 360 N
Hinges
Beltlme
Strength 1 SON
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 855
Lateral Rigidity
Front 360 N
Oil
Canning225
Door Sag
1000 N
Torsion
Rigidity27.1 KN-mm
Latch
Figure 4.18-93: Rear Door Loading and Boundary Conditions
The loading and boundary conditions were created in the same procedure as explained for
the front door using the same type of load quantities and constraints respectively.
The analysis results of the rear door performance study are provided in Table 4.18-18.
Table 4.18-18: Rear Door Performance Results Baseline
Target (mm)
Baseline Results (mm)
1 hrame Lateral Kigidity (hront)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 856
It is observed that, when compared to the generic door performance targets, baseline rear
door shows no significant deflections due to the frame loading. The baseline door
deflections are within the acceptable range for the remaining loadcases. These
performance measures are considered as baseline targets for the further iterations.
4.18.4.1.3 Baseline Hood
The following loadcases were considered to analyze the hood strength and stiffness:
1) Cantilever Bending
2) Torsional Rigidity
3) Oil Canning Load Deflection
The FEA model of the hood was developed in ABAQUS non-linear solver format. The
gauge and material grade maps of the hood are provided in Figure 4.18-94 and Figure
4.18-95.
3.2 mm
0.78 mm
Figure 4.18-94: Gauge Map of Hood
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 857
DP 350/600
I
Figure 4.18-95: Material Grade Map of Hood
The hood FEA model was constrained and loaded as per the loadcase requirements. The
necessary boundary conditions and loading conditions for the above loadcases are shown
in Figure 4.18-96.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 858
Oil Canning
225 N
(Torsion Rigidity)
180 N
Stopper
Cantilever
Bending 890 N
Latch
Figure 4.18-96: Material Grade Map of Hood
Cantilever bending simulation was carried out by applying a downward vertical load of
890 N at the latch point. The hood was constrained rigidly at hinges (DOF 1 to 6) and
stoppers (DOF 3 only) accordingly.
Torsional rigidity of the hood was studied by applying a downward vertical loadoflSO N
at the driver side stopper. The hood was constrained at the hinges (DOF 1 to 6) and
passenger side stopper (DOF 3 only) accordingly.
Oil canning load deflection is an important measure to study the hood deformation due to
external pressures such as palm impression, thumb load, denting. The oil canning
simulation was carried out to obtain the allowable deflection. A rigid circular pad was
created over the hood outer panel. The rigid pad was allowed to move towards the hood
(inboard engine direction) by applying a load 225 N in the normal direction of the
loading area as shown in Figure 4.18-96. The hood was constrained at the hinges (DOF 1
to 6) and latches (DOF 1 to 6) accordingly.
The analysis results of the rear door performance study are provided in Table 4.18-19
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 859
Table 4.18-19: Hood Performance Results Baseline
Generic Target (mm) Baseline Results (mm)
1
2
3
Cantilever Bending
Torsional Rigidity
Oil Canning Load Deflection
<0.85 Set
<35
<0.05 Set
3.30E-03
8.83
no Set
It is observed that, when compared to the generic hood performance targets, the baseline
hood shows no significant deflections due to bending and oil canning load. The baseline
hood deflections are within the acceptable range for the torsional loading. These
performance measures are considered as baseline targets for the further iterations.
4.18.4.1.4 Baseline Tailgate
The following loadcases were considered to analyze the tailgate (cargo box gate) strength
and stiffness:
1) Torsional Rigidity
2) Oil Canning Load Deflection
The FEA model of the tailgate was developed in ABAQUS non-linear solver format. The
gauge and material grade maps of the tailgate are provided in Figure 4.18-97 and Figure
4.18-98.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 860
1.12 mm
Figure 4.18-97: Gauge Map of Tailgate
DP 300/500
Figure 4.18-98: Material Grade Map of Tailgate
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 861
The tailgate FEA model was constrained and loaded as per the loadcase requirements.
The necessary boundary conditions and loading conditions for the above loadcases are
shown in Figure 4.18-99.
Constraint for
Torsional
(Torsion
Rigidity) 180 N
Hinges
Figure 4.18-99: Tailgate Loading and Boundary Conditions
Torsional rigidity of the tailgate was studied by applying a load of 180 N in vehicle
direction at the top corner of the tailgate (directly above the hinge). The tailgate was
constrained at the hinges (DOF 1 to 6) and at the other top corner opposite to the torsion
loading (DOF 1 only) accordingly as shown in Figure 4.18-99.
Similarly, the oil canning simulation was carried out to obtain the allowable deflection. A
rigid circular pad was created over the tailgate outer panel. The rigid pad was allowed to
move towards tailgate (inboard) by applying a load of 225 N in the normal direction of
the loading area as shown in Figure 4.18-99. The tailgate was constrained at the hinges
(DOF 1 to 6) and latches (DOF 1 to 6) accordingly.
The analysis results of the tailgate performance study are provided in Table 4.18-20.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 862
Table 4.18-20: Tailgate Performance Results Baseline
No. Load case
1 Torsional Rigidity
2 Oil Canning Load Deflection
Target
(mm)
<1.7
<0.05 Set
Baseline Results
(mm)
4.47E-01
S.86E-Q3
It is observed that when compared to the generic tailgate performance targets, baseline
tailgate shows no significant deflections due to torsion and oil canning load. The baseline
tailgate deflections are within the acceptable range. These performance measures are
considered as baseline targets for the further iterations.
4.18.5 Full Vehicle Optimization
In Phase 4 the results for the mass-reduce Silverado are reported along with the
performance comparisons (i.e., NVH, Crash, Closure Structural Attributes) between the
baseline Silverado and mass-reduced Silverado. In addition the incremental
manufacturing costs for the mass-reduced Silverado Body and Frame systems/subsystems
are provided at the end of this section.
Phase 3:
Modularization and System Analysis
Phase 4:
Full Vehicle Optimization
Correlated Crash
Model
Systems FEA
Models
Systems FEA
Systems Results on
Stiffness, Crush and
Fatigue
System
Results
Target and
Comparison
Factors for
Systems
Systems FEA
Models and
Comparison
Factors
Systems
alternatives
which meet
performance
Systems Costs
Full Vehicle
and Systems
Responses
Project
Objectives
Stable
Optimization
Algorithm
Full Vehicle
FEA
optimization
Algorithm
Optimized
FEA Models
which meet
Weight and
Costs Targets
Optimized
Full Vehicle
FEA Models
Final Design
Optimization
and
Cost/Weight
Curve
Generation
EDAG Experience in Virtual Validation and Model Generation
Ansa Advanced
EDAG FEA Software
for Model Quality
Check
Sensitivity
Analysts
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
Sensitivity
and
Optimization
Analysis
Software
EOAG Engineering (CAE and Vehicle Integration) Expertise
EDAG Results
Database
and Tools
Figure 4.18-100: Optimized Final Design
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 863
4.18.5.1 Optimized Body and Frame Mass reduction Overview
The outcome of the lightweight design optimization included the optimized frame, cabin,
cargo box, bumpers, and closures and incorporated the following:
• Optimized gauge and material grades.
• Frame - Utilizing HSS/AHSS and aluminum materials
• Cabin - Utilizing HSS/AHSS and aluminum materials
• Cargo box - Utilizing aluminum materials
• TRBs on frame rails - mid and rear rails (inner and outer)
• Aluminum fender, radiator structure and IP cross-member assemblies
• Aluminum front and rear bumpers
• Doors - Utilizing HSS/AHSS and aluminum materials
• Aluminum hood
• Tailgate - Utilizing HSS/AHSS and aluminum materials
Frame
The gauge and material grade map of the optimized frame is shown in Figure 4.18-101
and Figure 4.18-102.The frame also included TRB rails. The gauge and material grade
map of the TRB rails have been provided in Alternative Manufacturing Technology.
The TRB rail thickness range is about 2.5 - 3.5 mm. Strictly speaking, TRB rails weighed
more than baseline parts, but it helped to integrate three different parts of the rail into one
rail (inner/outer) and improved the stiffness performance.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 864
Figure 4.18-101: Gauge Map of Optimized Frame
BH 280 MPa
HSLA 420 MP;i
Figure 4.18-102: Material Map of Optimized Frame
The frame includes two aluminum parts, the front cross member and Trans cross
member. The details of the aluminum cross members are given in Figure 4.18-103.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 865
Steel
E-Module: 210000 MPa
Density 7850 Kg/m3
Poisson Ratio: 0.3
RearRailslnneriOuter
MPa
Trans X-Member tincl lower)
Baseline: Steel / 3.37 mm (upper). 2.4 mm (lower)
Optimized: Aluminum / 5.5 mm (both)
Aluminum:
E-Module 71000 MPa
Density 2710 Kg/m'
Poisson Ratio: 0.33
Aluminum
Parts
Baseline Optimized
%Diff.-
Baseline
Front X-Member
Baseline: Steel / 29 mm
Optimized: Aluminum / 6.5 mm
Mass
9 8 Kg
6 6 Kg
-32 "%
Figure 4.18-103: Aluminum Cross Members of Frame
It can be observed that the weight reduction, changing from baseline steel to aluminum
cross member is very significant at about 32.7%.
Cabin
The optimized cabin model have been developed based on a stamped riveted and bonded
aluminum structure with castings at some of the highly loaded interfaces.
For the purpose of this study the panels are the same geometry as the base vehicle (i.e., a
straight material and gauge substitution). The joining method used in the model is the
same as the steel baseline with the same number of rivets / spot welds. The adhesive is
not included in the NVH or crash models.
Figure 4.18-104 and Figure 4.18-105 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
optimized cabin respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 866
Figure 4.18-104: Gauge Map of Optimized Cabin
5 Series Aluminum
Sheet (117 MPa)
DP 300/500
Cast Aluminum 160 MPa
Figure 4.18-105: Material Map of Optimized Cabin
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 867
Further opportunities exist to use higher strength grades of steel in the cabin which in
conjunction with geometrical design changes would allow further mass reduction and / or
performance improvement.
4.18.5.1.1 Cargo Box
Figure 4.18-106 and Figure 4.18-107 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
optimized cargo box respectively.
2.00000
2.50000
2.70000
Figure 4.18-106: Gauge Map of Optimized Cargo Box
5 Series Aluminum
Sheet 117 MPa
Figure 4.18-107: Material Map of Optimized Cargo Box
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 868
4.18.5.1.2 Bumper System
Figure 4.18-108 and Figure 4.18-109 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
optimized front bumper respectively.
4.0mm
2.5mm
4.75
4.4722
4.1944
3.9167
3.6389
3.3611
3.0833
28056
2.5278
225
4.75 mm
2.9mm
Figure 4.18-108: Gauge Map of Optimized Front Bumper
Figure 4.18-109: Material Map of Optimized Front Bumper
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 869
Figure 4.18-110 and Figure 4.18-111 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
optimized rear bumper respectively.
2.98 mm (Plastic)
3.0mm
Figure 4.18-110: Gauge Map of Optimized Rear Bumper
AI-6013T6
Plastic
Figure 4.18-111: Material Map of Optimized Rear Bumper
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 870
4.18.5.1.3 Closures
Figure 4.18-112 and Figure 4.18-113 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
optimized closures (doors, hood and cargo box gate) respectively.
SHELL THICKNESS
Hood
Bracket
Front
Door
Bracket
a
Figure 4.18-112: Gauge Map of Optimized Closures
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 871
AL601336
ire 60MPa
L
DP 300 MP.i
t
I
AL6022 258.6MPa
AL6111 340MPa
HSLA 420 MPa
Figure 4.18-113: Material Map of Optimized Closures
Figure 4.18-114 and Figure 4.18-115 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
optimized Instrument Panel (IP) cross member respectively.
B
6235
57967
53083
482
43317
38433
3355
28667
23783
189
Figure 4.18-114: Gauge Map of Optimized IP Cross Member
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 872
5 Series Aluminum
Figure 4.18-115: Material Map of Optimized IP Cross Member
4.18.5.1.4 Radiator Support
Figure 4.18-116 and Figure 4.18-117 indicate the gauge and material grade maps of the
optimized radiator support (structure, extra cabin support) respectively.
Figure 4.18-116: Gauge Map of Optimized Radiator Support
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 873
Fascia Plastic 60MPa
AL6082321MPa
— •*
AL61II 340MPa
Figure 4.18-117: Material Map of Optimized Radiator Support
The major subassembly weights were calculated and tabulated with respect to the
baseline weights. Table 4.18-21 lists the major subassembly weights of the optimized
model against the baseline model.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 874
Table 4.18-21: Optimized Weights
Silverado Models
c «.*„„, Baseline Model
System Mass (kg)
Box Assembly Pick-Up
Frame Assembly
Cabin
Panel Fender Outer LH
Panel Fender Outer RH
Radiator Structure
IP XMbr Beam Assembly
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Sub-Total
Mass Savings
Bumper Front
Bumper Rear
Hood Assembly without Hinges
Door Assembly Front LH
Door Assembly Front RH
Door Assembly Rear LH
Door Assembly Rear RH
Cargo Box Gate
Sub-Total
Mass Savings
Total Mass
Total Mass Savings
108.3
242.0
207.2
14.9
14.0
12.9
12.1
12.1
623.5
28.5
19.9
22.7
29.0
28.9
22.0
22.2
18.8
192.0
815.5
Optimized Model
Mass (kg)
73.9
218.3
131.8
7.4
7.0
7.2
6.3
6.2
458.1
165.4
18.6
13.4
11.7
18.8
18.8
15.0
15.0
10.2
121.5
70.5
579.6
235.9
Optimized
compared to
Baseline Model
68.2%
90.2%
63.6%
49.7%
50.0%
55.8%
52.1%
51 .2%
73.5%
65.3%
67.3%
51 .5%
64.8%
65.1%
68.2%
67.6%
54.3%
63.3%
71.1%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 875
The curb mass of the optimized model is 1,893 kg, which includes the combined 28.9%
weight reduction from the systems listed in Table 4.18-22. It also includes a 21.1% mass
reduction of the rest of the non-structural parts. This 21.1% reduction is an estimated
weight reduction from trims and non-structural parts. The final weight distribution of the
optimized full vehicle is tabulated in Table 4.18-22, showing the weight of the baseline
and optimized models.
Table 4.18-22: Final Weight Summary for Optimized Vehicle
Silverado Models
Baseline Model
Mass (kg)
Optimized Model
Mass (kg)
Weight Reduced
Percentage
System
Sub-Total
Sub-Total
FEV-Systems
Chassis
Powertrain
Electrical
1638.5
1313.4
Body Interior
19.8%
EDAG-Systems
Box Assembly Pick-Up
Frame Assembly
Cabin
Panel Fender Outer LH
Panel Fender Outer RH
623.5
458.1
Radiator Structure
IP XMbr Beam Assembly
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
26.5%
Hood Assembly without Hinges
Door Assembly Front LH
Door Assembly Front RH
Door Assembly Rear LH
143.6
89.5
Door Assembly Rear RH
Cargo Box Gate
37.7%
Bumper Front
Bumper Rear
EDAG-Systems Total
UVW
48.4
32.0
33.9%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 876
The optimized weight of the body structure subsystems (frame, cabin, cargo box, fenders,
IP cross member assembly, and radiator assembly) is 458.1 kg when compared to
baseline weight of 623.5 kg. This is 165.4 kg (26.5%) reduction. The optimized weight of
the closure subsystems (hood, doors, and tailgate) is 89.5 kg when compared to baseline
weight of 143.6 kg. This is 54.1 kg (37.7%) reduction. The optimized weight of the
bumpers is 32.0 kg when compared to baseline weight of 48.4 kg. This is 16.4 kg
(33.9%) reduction. Therefore, the systems included in the EDAG portion of this study
were reduced by 235.9 kg (28.9%).
The optimization outcome was validated by carrying out further CAE simulations on the
optimized model. The optimized NVH and crash models were directly carried over from
the optimizer and appropriate loadcases were setup. The remaining loadcase models were
updated by incorporating the necessary data from optimization. The following sections
explain the NVH, durability, crash and vehicle dynamic model results in comparison to
the baseline results.
4.18.5.2
NVH Performance Results
The NVH models of frame, cab, cargo box BIPs (containing only BIW parts and a few
bolt-on parts as explained earlier), and full EOF (containing frame, cabin, cargo box,
bumpers and trailer hitch) configurations were once again subjected to static bending and
static torsion simulations by incorporating the optimization outcome. Table 4.18-23
through Table 4.18-26 provide the results of the optimized models for bending stiffness
and torsion stiffness loadcases.
Table 4.18-23: NVH Results Summary for Optimized Frame Model
Weiaht Torsion Bendin9
Study Description /^ { Stiffness Stiffness
( 9} (KN.m/rad) (N/mm)
Comments
EDAG CAE Model
Baseline Frame
CAE Model of 2011 Silverado
242.0 190.3 2,983 Frame same configuration as Test
Vehicle
EDAG CAE Model
Optimized Frame
CAE Model of 2011 Silverado
218.3 189.6 3,213 Frame same configuration as
Baseline
Percentage of
Optimized Model to 90.2%
Baseline
99.6%
107.7%
Comparison between Baseline and
Optimized Model
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 877
Table 4.18-24: NVH Results Summary for Optimized Cabin Model
Study Description
EDAG CAE Model
Baseline Cabin
EDAG CAE Model
Optimized Cabin
Percentage of
Optimized Model to
Baseline
Weight
(Kg)
207.2
131.8
63.6%
Torsion
Stiffness
(KN.m/rad)
1,021.5
1,058.4
103.6%
Bending
Stiffness
(N/mm)
7,060
6,872
97.3%
Comments
CAE Model of 2011 Silverado Cabin
same configuration as Test Vehicle
CAE Model of 2011 Silverado Cabin
same configuration as Baseline
Comparison between Baseline and
Optimized Model
Table 4.18-25: NVH Results Summary for Optimized Cargo Box Model
Weiaht Torsion Bending
Study Description /u- » Stiffness Stiffness
(Kg)
Comments
(KN.m/rad) (N/mm)
EDAG CAE Model
Baseline Cargo Box
CAE Model of 2011 Silverado
108.3 219.8 2,324 Box same configuration as Test
Vehicle
EDAG CAE Model
Optimized Cargo Box
CAE Model of 2011 Silverado
73.9 214.0 3,039 Box same configuration as
Baseline
Percentage of Optimized RQ 00/ Q-, A0.
Model to Baseline 68'2/0 97'4/0
130.8%
Comparison between Baseline
and Optimized Model
Table 4.18-26: NVH Results Summary for Optimized EOF Model
Weiaht TorS'°n Bendin9
Study Description ,j
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 878
From these tables it can be seen that the NVH performance of the optimized CAE models
are very similar to the baseline models in terms of both torsion and bending loadcases
while meeting the <5% comparison requirement. The optimized frame model shows
improvements in performance with 9.8% weight reduction. The optimized cabin (all
aluminum except hinges) model shows 3.6% improvement in torsion characteristics and a
0.8% improvement in bending characteristics. The optimized cargo box shows a slight
reduction in performance for torsional characteristics, however it is within the allowable
limit of <5%. However, greater performance improvement is observed in bending
characteristics with significantly higher weight reduction of 31.8%. Similarly, the full
BOF model shows a performance change in torsional stiffness, but it is well within the
allowable limits, whereas the bending performance shows a 3.2% improvement.
4.18.5.3 Crash Performance Results
The optimized crash model was validated further for the following seven different crash
loadcases and compared with the results of baseline models respectively.
1) FMVSS 208 - 35 mph flat frontal crash (US NCAP)
2) IIHS - 40 mph ODB frontal crash
3) FMVSS 214 - 38.5 mph MDB side impact (US SINCAP)
4) IIHS - 31 mph MDB side impact
5) FMVSS 214 - 20 mph5th Percentile pole side impact
6) FMVS S 3 01 - 5 0 mph MDB rear impact
7) FMVSS 216a - Roof crush (utilizing IIHS roof-crush criteria)
The model setup and test requirements were maintained consistent to that of EDAG
baseline models, as explained earlier.
1) FMVSS 208 - 35 mph flat frontal crash (US NCAP)
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes at 150ms (end of crash event) of the optimized model were
compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Figure
4.18-118 through Figure 4.18-122. The left-hand side illustrations show the deformation
modes of the baseline model and the right-hand side illustrations show the deformation
modes of the optimized model.
Observing the exterior vehicle deformation mode comparisons indifferent views, the
optimized model shows similar characteristics in structural deformation.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 879
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-118: Deformation Mode Left Side View at 150ms
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-119: Deformation Mode Front View at 150ms
Figure 4.18-120: Deformation Mode Bottom View at 150ms (Baseline, left; Optimized, right)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 880
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-121: Deformation Mode ISO View at 150ms
The underbody structural deformation modes are compared as shown in Figure 4.18-122.
Figure 4.18-122: Deformation Mode Underbody View at 80ms (Baseline, left; Optimized, right)
Crash Pulse
Figure 4.18-123 through Figure 4.18-125 show the comparisons of acceleration, velocity
and displacement of the optimized and baseline models with the results summarized in
Table 4.18-27.
The pulse shape overall is similar between the models however the balance in crush load
in the front rails and the secondary crush (behind the front suspension mount) has
resulted in a slightly stiffer pulse in the 50-60ms region. The low acceleration pulse in the
0-20ms range is due to the balance between the primary energy absorption in the front
rails and the absorbed in the secondary crush (behind the front suspension mount).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 881
SILVERADO FRONTAL ACCELERATION
Figure 4.18-123: CAE Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
SILVERADO FRONTAL VELOCITY
Time(s)
Figure 4.18-124: CAE Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 882
SILVERADO FRONTAL DISPLACEMENT
Figure 4.18-125: CAE Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
Table 4.18-27: Pulse and Dynamic Crush
No. Frontal crash Measurements Silverado
1
2
3
Dynamic Crush (mm)
T (to zero) (ms)
Pulse (G's)
655-717
75.0-80.5
37.7-48.1
655.5
75.9
37.9
701.4
78.2
47.3
Intrusion
The dash intrusions are summarized in Table 4.18-28.
No.
Table 4.18-28: Dash Intrusion Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
Intrusion Test (mm) Baseline (mm) Optimized (mm)
•>
1
2
3
4
5
Door Opening
Driver Footrest
Driver Toe Pan Left
Driver Toe Pan Center
Driver Toe Pan Right
6-4
no data
no data
no data
no data
6.3
31.9
34.5
43.7
44.6
0.7
28.8
47.1
73.5
82.9
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 883
4.18.5.3.1 IIHS—40 mph ODB Frontal Crash
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes at 150ms (end of crash event) of the optimized model were
compared to that of the baseline model. The deformation modes are presented in Figure
4.18-126 through Figure 4.18-128. The left-hand side illustrations show the deformation
modes of the baseline model and the right-hand side illustrations show the deformation
modes of the optimized model.
Observing the exterior vehicle deformation mode comparisons in different views, the
optimized model shows similar characteristics of structural deformation.
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-126: Deformation Mode Top View at 150ms
Baseline
Optimized
Figure 4.18-127: Deformation Mode ISO View at 150ms
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 884
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-128: Deformation Mode Left Side View at 150ms
The underbody structural deformation modes are compared as shown Figure 4.18-129
and Figure 4.18-130, where it can be seen the optimized model shows the same level of
deformation as that of the baseline target. The compartment area is well protected from
significant deformation in both the optimized and baseline models. From the deformation
modes, it is also noted the crush energy is absorbed by the engine compartment, rails, and
front cradle.
Figure 4.18-129: Deformation Mode Bottom View at 150ms - Baseline
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 885
Figure 4.18-130: Deformation Mode Bottom View at 150ms - Optimized
Crash Pulse
Figure 4.18-131 shows the pulse comparison between the optimized model and the
baseline model.
SILVERADO FRONTAL ACCELERATION
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15
Time (s)
Figure 4.18-131: CAE Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
In this case, the optimized model shows a similar level of performance to the baseline
model in terms of crash pulse.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 886
Dynamic Crush
The deformation indicator of the vehicle structure dynamic crash is compared in Figure
4.18-132 and Figure 4.18-133. The total dynamic crush shown in Figure 4.18-132
includes the barrier deformation.
1400
SILVERADO FRONTAL DISPLACEMENT
0.06 0.08 0.1
Time (s)
Figure 4.18-132: CAE Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized (with Barrier Deformation)
SILVERADO FRONTAL VELOCITY
0.14
0.16
Figure 4.18-133: CAE Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
Dash Panel Intrusions
The compartment dash panel intrusions measured at the footrest, toe pan, instrument
panel cross member, and door openings are plotted with respect to the performance rating
chart and is shown in Figure 4.18-134.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 887
IIHS Structural Rating
Foot rest LeftTp Center Tp RightTp BrakePed id
Figure 4.18-134: IIHS Frontal Dash Panel Intrusion Plot
The intrusion plot shows the optimized model has improved in terms of lower intrusion
values and has achieved the better rating when compared to the baseline model for the
critical dash panel locations.
A summary of IIHS performance measurements is provided in Table 4.18-29 and Table
4.18-30.
Table 4.18-29: Dash Intrusion Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
No.
1
2
3
Frontal Crash Measurements
1st Peak / Highest Peak
Time To Zero Velocity (ms)
Dynamic Crush Max. (mm)
Baseline
6.23/50.3
110.0
1317.2
Optimized
6.98/45.2
107.3
1255.2
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 888
Table 4.18-30: Dash Intrusion Comparison Baseline vs. Optimized
Intrusion Baseline (mm) Optimized (mm)
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
Driver Footrest
Driver Toe Pan Left
Driver Toe Pan Center
Driver Toe Pan Right
Left IP
Right IP
Door Aperture
88.1
88.6
120.7
66.0
21.6
3.3
38.3
34.4
54.1
96.3
29.4
0.0
0.0
4.3
From the intrusion values listed in Table 4.17-30, it is seen that intrusion pattern the
baseline. The optimized model intrusions show an overall improvement in performance.
Thus, based on the analysis of the baseline model, the optimized model with significant
weight reduction meets the frontal offset impact performance requirements.
4.18.5.3.2 FMVSS 214 - 38.5 mph MDB side impact
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes of the side impact optimized model and the baseline model are
shown in Figure 4.18-135 to Figure 4.18-138. It indicates both the baseline and the
optimized models have similar deformation.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 889
Baseline Model
Optimized Model
Figure 4.18-135: Global Deformation Modes of Baseline and Optimized Models
Figure 4.18-136 shows front and rear door deformation modes at the impact area of B-
pillar. It is observed the optimized model shows similar characteristics of deformation
trend at the impact area. However the optimized model deformation is lower than
baseline model.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 890
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-136: Deformation Modes of Front and Rear Doors of Baseline and Optimized Models
Similarly, Figure 4.18-137 shows the same characteristics of rear door aperture area
deformations for both the baseline and the optimized models. The optimized models less
deformation compared to baseline model.
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-137: Rear Door Aperture Deformations of Baseline and Optimized Models
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 891
Body Intrusion
The key performance requirement of the side structure intrusion of the optimized model
was compared with the baseline model. Figure 4.18-138 shows the relative intrusion of
the side structure in the optimized model at section 1200Lwith respect to the un-deformed
model. The sectional contour in green indicates the deformed shape of the optimized
model with respect to the baseline sectional contour in blue. The sectional contour in gray
color indicates the un-deformed shape.
Baseline
Optimized
Original Position
Figure 4.18-138: FMVSS Side Intrusion Plot
A summary of the relative intrusions of the B-pillar of the optimized model is shown in
Table 4.18-31.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 892
Table 4.18-31: Baseline vs. Optimized Model - Relative Intrusions of Side Structure at 1200L for
FMVSS 214 Side Impact
Optimized (mm)
Level-5
Level-4
Level-3
Level-2
Level-1
All measured points are taken
22
169
289
335
321
at the vehicle exterior point
12
173
242
267
281
From the above listed side structure intrusions, it is observed that the optimized model
revealed lower intrusion at Level 3 to Level 1 and increased intrusion at Level 4 and 5.
Therefore, the side structure intrusion performance of the optimized model is judged to
be acceptable.
4.18.5.3.3 IIHS - 3Imph MDB Side Impact
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes of the side impact optimized model and the baseline model are
shown in Figure 4.18-139 through Figure 4.18-141. It indicates both the baseline and the
optimized models have similar deformation shapes but different magnitude levels for
intrusions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 893
Baseline Model
Optimized Model
Figure 4.18-139: Global Deformation Modes of Baseline and Optimized Models
Figure 4.18-140 shows front and rear door deformation modes at the impact area of B-
pillar. It is observed the optimized model shows similar characteristics of deformation
trend at the impact area. However the optimized model deformation is lower than
baseline model.
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-140: Deformation Modes of Front and Rear Doors of Baseline and Optimized Models
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 894
Similarly, Figure 4.18-141 shows the same characteristics of rear door aperture area
deformations for both the baseline and the optimized models. The optimized models less
deformation compared to baseline model.
Baseline Optimized
Figure 4.18-141: Rear Door Aperture Deformations of Baseline and Optimized Models
Body Intrusion
The key performance requirement of the side structure intrusion of the optimized model
was compared with the baseline model. Figure 4.18-142 shows the relative intrusion of
the side structure in the optimized model at section 1200L with respect to the un-
deformed model. The sectional contour in green indicates the deformed shape of the
optimized model with respect to the baseline sectional contour in blue. The sectional
contour in gray color indicates the un-deformed shape. The optimized model shows
improvement over the baseline model in side structure intrusion levels.
-------
-J
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 895
Baseline
Optimized
Original Position
Figure 4.18-142: IIHS Side Intrusion Plot
Table 4.18-32 is a summary of the relative intrusions of the optimized model B-pillar.
Table 4.18-32: Baseline vs. Optimized Model - Relative Intrusions of Side Structure at 1200L for
IIHS Side Impact
Measured Level
Baseline (mm)
Optimized (mm)
Level-7
Level-6
Level-5
Level-4
Level-3
Level-2
Level-1
All measured points are taken
166
299
334
351
345
333
310
at the vehicle interior point
118
224
254
277
279
276
263
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 896
From the above listed side structure intrusions, it is observed that the optimized model
revealed lower intrusion at all levels. Considering the worst case intrusion, the maximum
side structure intrusions at 1200L section is less than the baseline results. Therefore the
side structure intrusion performance of the optimized model is judged to be acceptable.
Additionally, for IIHS regulatory loadcases, the intrusions are compared from the
occupant safety point of view. Figure 4.18-143 shows the side structure intrusions of
optimized and baseline models plotted with respect to the regulatory survival space
contour measured from the seat center line.
\
Intrusions measured from Seat Center Line
Minimum survival space
Baseline
Optimized
Original Position
Figure 4.18-143: Side Structure Intrusion Comparison with Survival Space Rate
The survival space is rated using different zones based on the interior structure location at
the end of the crash which are: good (green), acceptable (yellow), marginal (orange), and
poor (red). From the above Figure 4.18-143 the optimized model shows an acceptable
rate whereas baseline model shows a marginal rate.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 897
Similarly, the exterior crush of the side structure also is compared as shown in Figure
4.18-144. It is a sectional top view of the vehicle impact area representing the external
crush tendency.
Level
1
2
3
4
5
Baseline
(mm)
82
236
315
347
363
Optimized
(mm)
62
186
254
284
296
Figure 4.18-144: Side Structure Exterior Crush Comparison
The green line shows the side crush tendency of the optimized model compared to the
baseline tendency in blue line. The gray line shows the original un-deformed shape. The
deformed shapes of the side structure were measured at the end of the simulation.
The intrusion numbers of the side structure deformations of the optimized model
demonstrate a similar tendency and lower crush (table insert in Figure 4.18-144).
Therefore the optimized with weight reduction meets the required baseline targets.
4.18.5.3.4 FMVSS 214—20 mph 5thPercentile Pole Side Impact
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes of the pole side impact optimized model and the baseline model
are shown in Figure 4.18-145 through Figure 4.18-147. It indicates both the baseline and
the optimized models have similar deformation.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 898
Baseline Model
Optimized Model
Figure 4.18-145: Global Deformation Modes of Baseline and Optimized Models Top View at 200 ms
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 899
Baseline Model
Optimized Model
Figure 4.18-146: Global Deformation Modes of Baseline and Optimized Models Side View at 200ms
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 900
Figure 4.18-147: Global Deformation Modes of Baseline (top) and Optimized (bottom) Models
Bottom View at 200ms
Body Intrusion
The key performance requirement of the pole impact side structure intrusion of the
optimized model was compared with the baseline model. Figure 4.18-148 shows the
relative intrusion of the side structure in the optimized model at sectionOL with respect to
the un-deformed model. The sectional contour in green indicates the deformed shape of
the optimized model with respect to the baseline sectional contour in blue. The sectional
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 901
contour in gray color indicates the un-deformed shape. The optimized model shows
improved performance compared to the baseline model in side structure intrusion levels.
Baseline
Optimized
Original Position
Figure 4.18-148: Side Structure Intrusion Plot of Optimized Model at OL Section
A summary of the relative intrusions of the B-pillar of the optimized model is shown in
Table 4.18-33.
Table 4.18-33: Baseline vs. Optimized Model - Relative Intrusions of Side Structure @OL for Pole
Side Impact
Level-5
Level-4
Level-3
Level-2
Level-1
* All measured points are taken
241
492
546
553
510
at the vehicle exterior point
157
366
410
417
360
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 902
From the above listed side structure intrusions, it is observed that the optimized model
revealed lower intrusion at all levels. As explained in Section 4.18.2.1, considering the
worst case intrusion, the maximum side structure intrusions is less than the baseline
results. Therefore, the pole impact side structure intrusion performance of the optimized
model is judged to be acceptable.
4.18.5.3.5 FMVSS 301—50 mph MDB Rear Impact
Deformation Mode
The deformation modes of the rear impact simulation of the optimized model are shown
in Figure 4.18-149 through Figure 4.18-152. Similar to the baseline model, these
deformation modes indicate the rear structure protect the fuel tank system well during the
crash event. In Figure 4.18-150, the rear door area shows no jamming shut of the door
opening.
The skeleton view comparison of the optimized model rear inner structure deformation is
shown in Figure 4.18-150. It shows a similar trend of the baseline model where the rear
underbody was involved resulting in maximizing the crush energy absorption and
minimizing the deformation of the rear door and fuel tank mounting areas.
Baseline Model
Optimized Model
Figure 4.18-149: Deformation Mode Comparison of Optimized Model - Left Side View at 120ms
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 903
Figure 4.18-150: Deformation Mode Comparison of Baseline (top) and Optimized (bottom) Model
Rear Structure Area - Left Side Views at 120ms
The bottom view of the rear underbody structure around the fuel tank area at the end of
crash (120ms) is shown in Figure 4.18-151 and Figure 4.18-152. This deformation mode
shows the rear rail structure and the rear suspension mounting are also intact to protect
the fuel tank system.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 904
Figure 4.18-151: Deformation Mode Comparison of Baseline (top) and Optimized (bottom) Model
Bottom Views at 120ms
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 905
Figure 4.18-152: Deformation Mode Comparison of Baseline (top) and Optimized (bottom) Rear
Underbody Structure - Bottom Views at 120ms
Fuel Tank Deformation
The fuel tank integrity of the optimized model is further analyzed by its plastic strain plot
and is compared to the baseline model. The fuel tank system strain plot was monitored as
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 906
one of the necessary parameters in a rear impact scenario. Figure 4.18-153 shows the
comparison of the fuel tank system's strain plot after the crash.
Plastic Strain
Plastic Strain
Figure 4.18-153: Comparison of Fuel Tank System Integrity (Baseline, top; Optimized, bottom)
Similar to the baseline model, the optimized model also indicates no significant risk of
fuel system damage as the maximum strain is less than 10%, which is less than the
expected plastic strain required to fail the tank material. It thus meets the baseline target
in terms of fuel tank integrity.
Structural deformation
The rear impact structural performance of the optimized model is further compared with
the baseline model in terms of zonal deformation and rear door opening area deformation
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 907
(shown in Figure 4.18-75). The structural deformations measured at different zones are
listed and compared to the baseline model in Table 4.18-34.
Table 4.18-34: Rear Impact Structural Performance Comparison
Model
Baseline
Optimized
Under
Zone-1
402.8
448.7
Structure Zone
Zone-2
348.7
355.5
Deformation
Zone-3
132.1
125.8
(mm)
Zone-4
(Max.)
115.2
130.9
Door
Opening (mm)
Beltline Dogleg
2.6
0.1
-1.8
-0.3
Based on our acceptance criteria that the rear door must be capable of opening after the
impact event and there must be fuel system integrity, the optimized model is judged
acceptable.
4.18.5.3.6 Roof Crush Resistance
Deformation Mode
The roof crush deformation mode at the final plot state is shown in Figure 4.18-154. It is
noted that, similar to the baseline model, most of the deformation is concentrated on the
roof rail, A-pillar, and B-pillar of the loaded side. The other neighboring structures
remained un-deformed. The optimized model structure thus has the same level of roof
crush resistance performance as the baseline model.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 908
Baseline Model
Optimized Model
Figure 4.18-154: Deformation Mode Comparison of Roof Crush
-------
pi strun (Slwll/Sd<0)
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 909
Figure 4.18-155: Roof Crush Plastic Strain Areas ISO View at 100ms
Figure 4.18-156: Roof Crush Plastic Strain Areas Front View at 100ms
-------
pi. strain (Shfll/SoiKil
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 910
Figure 4.18-157: Roof Crush Plastic Strain Areas Side View at 100ms
p! strain (Shell/Solid)
Figure 4.18-158: Roof Crush Plastic Strain Areas Top View at 100ms
-------
120
110
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 911
Force vs Displacement
FMVSS Force (1.5 x UVW) = 36.1kN
FMVSS Force (1.5 x UVW) = 27.9kN
20
40
60 80
Displacement (mm)
100
120
Figure 4.18-159: Roof Crush Load vs. Displacement Plot
140
Strength to Weight Ratio
20
40
60 80
Displacement (mm)
100
120
140
Figure 4.18-160: Roof Strength to Weight Ratio Comparison
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 912
Similar to the baseline model assessment, the curb weight of the optimized roof crush
resistance model 1893 kg is used for roof strength calculation. It can be observed in
Figure 4.18-159, Figure 4.18-160, and Table 4.18-35 that the maximum load (98.5 kN)
is greater than three times the curb weight force (55.3 kN) requirement within the platen
displacement of 127 mm (this would classify as a "good" under the IIHS protocol).
A comparative summary of the optimized model's roof crush performance is provided in
Table 4.18-35.
Table 4.18-35: Rear Impact Structural Performance Comparison
Model Curb Wt. (kg) Peak Force (KN) Strength to Weight Ratio
Baseline 2454 69.3 2.9
Optimized 1893 98.5 5.3
4.18.5.4 Closures Performance Results
Aluminum intensive closures have been analyzed for the same loadcases as detailed in
Modular FEA Models. For the study a basic material and gauge study has been conducted
utilizing the same geometry as the steel baseline door to give an indication of the mass
reduction opportunity available.
For each closure analyzed the following data is presented:
• A thickness map for the sheet metal parts
• A material map (showing the material grades)
• A table comparing the performance to the baseline door for the loadcase matrix
analyzed for the baseline door.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 913
4.18.5.4.1 Front Door Performance
2.63 mm
6.82 mm
Figure 4.18-161: Gauge Map of Optimized Front Door
-------
x~l
6022 T6 290MPa
6022 T6 290MPa
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 914
>
6013 T6 370MP3
FB 450/600
DP 300/500
Figure 4.18-162: Material Grade Map of Optimized Front Door
Table 4.18-36: Front Door Performance Results Optimized
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Frame Lateral Rigidity (Front)
Frame Lateral Rigidity (Rear)
Beltline Strength - Compression
Beltline Strength - Expansive
Torsional Rigidity
Door Sag
Oil Canning Load Deflection
no set
no set
3.2
0.94
2.98
0.62 set
no set
no Set
no Set
2.03
1.3
3.36
0.39
no Set
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 915
2) Rear Door Performance
2.9 mm
1.57 mm
0.93 mm
3.37mm
/
2.54 mm
.8 mm
1.65mm
3.34 mm
Figure 4.18-163: Gauge Map of Rear Door
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 916
I
Figure 4.18-164: Material Grade Map of Optimized Rear Door
Table 4.18-37: Rear Door Performance Results Optimized
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Frame Lateral Rigidity (Front)
Frame Lateral Rigidity (Rear)
Beltline Strength - Compression
Beltline Strength - Expansive
Torsional Rigidity
Door Sag
Oil Canning Load Deflection
No set
No set
1.1
1.0
3.8
0.5 set
0.025
No Set
No Set
1.4
1.35
3.8
0.39
No Set
-------
3) Hood Performance
3.2 mm
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 917
1.17 mm
Figure 4.18-165: Gauge Map of Optimized Hood
DP 350/600
i
Figure 4.18-166: Material Grade Map of Optimized Hood
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 918
Table 4.18-38: Hood Performance Results Optimized
No.
1
2
3
Load case
Cantilever Bending
Torsional Rigidity
Oil Canning Load Deflection
Baseline(mm)
3.3E-03
8.83
no Set
Optimized (mm)
No Set
13.4
no Set
4) Tailgate Performance
3.5 mm
2.25 mm
1.72mm
1 14 mm
1.68mm
Figure 4.18-167: Gauge Map of Optimized Tailgate
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 919
6022 T6 290MPa
DP 300/500
Figure 4.18-168: Material Grade Map of Optimized Tailgate
Table 4.18-39: Tailgate Performance Results Optimized
Baseline (mm) Optimized (mm
1
2
Torsional Rigidity
Oil Canning Load Deflection
0.44
0.007
0.62
No Set
4.18.5.5 Bumper Impact Performance Results
The bumper system tests were not included in the optimization matrix for the project. The
final optimized design has been analyzed for the FMVSS 581 loadcases and compared
back to the baseline model. The model has been analyzed for both the baseline and the
optimized configurations at the ride heights detailed in Figure 4.18-169.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 920
680
Ground Reference Line
(Vehicle Coordinate Z= 10.0mm)
Figure 4.18-169: Vehicle Height Dimension Baseline
The performance is assessed against three criteria:
1. Minimum Gap pendulum to lamp/hood/box (target to maintain or increase versus
the baseline)
2. Max plastic strain in the bumper beam
3. Max plastic strain in the crush can /tow bar (target to maintain or minimize versus
the baseline <2%)
Frontal Pendulum Impacts
The performance under FMVSS 581 loadcases for the front bumper baseline and
optimized configurations are detailed in Table 4.18-40 and Table 4.18-41. The
performance versus the baseline is summarized below.
• The gap (pendulum- hood/lamps) is maintained (+/- 3mm)
• Maximum plastic strain in the aluminum bumper 12.6% (2.5mph rigid wall)
• Plastic strains in the crush cans are equivalent to the baseline (and less than 2%)
Rear Pendulum Impacts
The performance under FMVSS 581 loadcases for the rear bumper baseline and
optimized configurations are detailed in Table 4.18-42 and Table 4.18-43. The
performance versus the baseline is summarized as follows.
• The gap (pendulum - hood/lamps) is maintained (-1mm+15mm)
• Maximum plastic strain in the aluminum bumper 9.4% (2.5mph rigid wall)
• Plastic strains in the tow bar are equivalent to the baseline (and less than 2%)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 921
Table 4.18-40: Front Bumper Impact Performance Baseline
Baseline
Impact Scenario
y rm
16" Center Une J
2.5 mph
V — M
f — P
20~ Center Line J
l.Smph V,
v^~
Z^--
f~~^^^m j*~~
16"Off*« Left /
l.Smph ft i \ |tQ
20 "Offset Left f
2-5 mph £ >S
16 "Corner Left f
l.Smph ^ i 1 £y%
ssr^OT^sS
Rat Rigid Wall (8
2.5 mph \ > [ ; | C0
Smallest Gap (mm) between
Pendulum to lamp, rtood when
Fully DefornieO
29.7
24.2
63,1
51.3
71.0
6S.2
43.4
@ Time (ms)
75
45
6S
50
120
70
60
Plastic Strain
Bumper beam
5.4 %
6.4%
8.5%
8.1%
3.7%
3.1%
io.a%
Plastic Strain
Crush Can
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1.9%
Table 4.18-41: Front Bumper Impact Performance Optimized
Optimized
Impact Scenario
16 'Center Line / f^^~~
2.5 mph "L^ f&
20" Center Line /^
2.5 mph \_LL (^
16 -Offset Left /
2.5 mph "LLL ^0—
20 "Offset Left (~ _— S~~
2.5 mph 'i_jj^ (qj—
16 "Corner Left f~
1.5 mph \_>_\ f^_ _,_
20" Corner Left •
1.5 mph ^ i i .. I^—
Flat Rigid Wall /
2.5 mph 1 • i tg
Smallest Gap (mm) behve«n
Pendulum to lamp, hood when
Fully Deformed
28.3
22.2
63.6
48.9
72.1
66.5
46.5
UTirne (ms)
75
45
70
55
120
70
60
Plastic Strain
Bumper beam
5.5%
6.6%
9.5%
8.7%
3.1%
4.6%
12.6%
Plastic Strain
crusn can
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1%
< 1.9%
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 922
Table 4.18-42: Rear Bumper Impact Performance Baseline
Baseline
! rnpact Scenario
2. 5 mph || ^^j
20" Center Line ••
2, 5 mph
•
16" Offset Left ^
2. 5 mph
20" Offset Left *
2.Smph
D'3^
"-
'
' ^h — i.
-o-
16" Corner Left "^ -
1.5 mph -f^\
20" Corner Left •
1.5 mph
Flat Rigid Wall ™
2. 5 mph
mt
c
13^4
D^
Smallest Gap (mrn) between
Pendulum to lamp, box when
Fully Deformed
185,4
105,4
88.1
79.2
60.0
64.7
100.3
@ Time (ms)
30
45
50
70
90
115
40
Plastic Strain
Bumper beam
0% PJastic
< 1% Steel
0% Plastic
Time (ms)
30
35
50
55
70
70
35
Plastic Strain
Bumper beam
0% Plastic
0% Aluminum
0% Plastic
0% Aluminum
17. 2% Plastic
8.6% Aluminum
17. 7% Plastic
9.4% Aluminum
<1% Plastic
1.9% Aluminum
<1% Plastic
1.9% Aluminum
7,6% Plastic
3.4% Aluminum
Plastic Strain
Trailer Hitch
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 923
4.18.5.6 Vehicle Dynamics Performance Results
The light-weight design study also included investigation of vehicle dynamics
performance of the light-weight vehicle. The vehicle dynamics performance of the
optimized vehicle model was compared with that of the baseline model. Initially the full
vehicle model of baseline vehicle dynamics was constructed in MSC ADAMS/Chassis
by using the hard points data of the full vehicle, mass and inertia, spring damper
characteristics and jounce and bumper rates.
The following outlines the basic steps taken to build vehicle dynamics models for
baseline and optimized vehicle configurations.
• Build Baseline model and
• Correlate to Vehicle Data
Hard Point Data
• Vehicle Mass and Inertia - VIMF
• Kinematics and Compliance - K&C
• Suspension Dampers (Force-Velocity Data)
• Other Components
• Weight Estimations
• Occupant Cargo Positions
• Build Optimized Vehicle
• Vehicle Dynamic Performance Results Comparisons
Static Vehicle Characteristics
Dynamic Vehicle Characteristics
Constant Radius
J-Turn
Frequency Response (2 Pass only)
Static Stability Factor
Summary of Results
• The analysis above covered the following information:
• Match Optimized target values for
Total axle mass and unsprung mass
CG height at Curb
Roll, pitch and yaw inertias
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 924
Match Optimized to Baseline model for
Ride height at GVW condition (typical "design" condition for trucks)
Ride Frequency at GVW
Roll Gradient
Roll Couple Distribution (taking into account weight distribution difference)
Evaluate at Various Loading Conditions
1-Pass
2-Pass
5-Pass
GVW (5-Pass + Cargo)
4.18.5.6.1 Vehicle Dynamics Model Parameters
The following model parameters were included in the vehicle dynamics models (baseline
and optimized configuration) accordingly by validating with physical Mass and Inertia
(VIMF) and K&C tests.
1) Hard Point Data
The hard points are the structural joint locations of the front and rear suspensions on
which vehicle sprung mass and unsprung mass are attached. The hard point data was
measured by CMM (Co-ordinate Measuring Machine) techniques. Table 4.18-44 and
Table 4.18-45, respectively, show the summary of the hard point data of the front and
rear suspensions.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 925
Table 4.18-44: Front Suspension Hard Points
Front Suspension (Curb)
UCA Front Bushing
UCA Rear Bushing
LCA FrontBushing
LCARear Bushing
Lower Ball Joint
UpperBallJoint
WheelCenter
Tire Patch
Spindle AlignmentPoint
OuterTieRod Ball
InnerTie Rod Ball
Lower Shock
UpperShock
Spring Lower
Spring Upper
X
-4809.8
-4533.9
-4885.9
-4454.7
-4631.2
-4609.5
-4624
-4624
-4624
-4787.4
-4788.4
-4672.7
-4672.1
-4672.2
-2671.3
Left
Y
-480.5
-482.3
-339.7
-339.4
-783
-727.3
-865.1
-865.1
-864.1
-802.8
-395.3
-598.7
-491.6
-566.2
-504.9
Z
-187.2
-229.2
-437.9
-440.3
-468.5
-203.2
-371.8
-737.8
-371.8
-358.3
-347,4
-404.6
-17
-287
-65.2
Table 4.18-45: Rear Suspension Hard Points
Rear Suspension (Curb)
Leaf Springto Axle
Leaf Spring to Frame
Leaf Springto Shackle
Shackle to Frame
WheelCenter
Shock Lower
Shock Upper
bumperalign
bumpertip
contact point
Left
X
-981.7
-1794.8
-193.9
-191.9
-971.9
-872.1
-691.7
-981.8
-981.0
-979.9
Y
-655.4
-622.9
-626.2
-626.4
-847.7
-483.0
-375.0
-505.4
-503.6
-501.6
Z
-309.4
-334.3
-148.8
-260.1
-436.6
-551.5
-71.1
-245.0
-319.2
-385.5
Right
X
-1065.3
-1283.7
Y
490.5
371.1
Z
-559.6
-77.7
2) Mass and Inertia (VIMF) Data
Vehicles mass and inertia were measured at Ford Motor Company VIMF (Vehicle Inertia
Measuring Facility).
Table 4.18-46 shows the VIMF data of the full vehicle.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 926
Table 4.18-46: Mass and Inertia Baseline Model
Configuration: 4x4, Crew Cab, 5.3L Left Right Total CG Height Pitch Inertia Yaw Inertia Roll Inertia
Condition: Curb (kg) (kg) (kg) (mm) (kg-m*2) (kg-m*2) (kg-m*2)
Baseline Target (VIMF Measured)
Front Axle
Rear Axle
733.50
522.20
710.30
519.40
1443.80
1041.60
2485.40
71S.6
63S1
6781
1090
The physical weights of the left and right of front and rear of the vehicle respectively are
listed. Center of Gravity (CG) height was measured as necessary parameter to build the
ADAMS/Chassis model. The X co-ordinates front and rear suspensions CG, were
measured at the axis of front and rear axles. Assuming the model symmetry, the Y co-
ordinates of front and rear suspension CG was taken as 0.
3) Kinematics and Compliance (K&C) Data
Kinematics and Compliance test was conducted on the baseline vehicle at Ford Motor
Company K&C laboratory. The vehicle motion characteristics, suspension dimensional
ranges were recorded accordingly for correlation purpose. Table 4.18-47 shows a
summary of K&C test of baseline vehicle.
Table 4.18-47: K&C Test Summary Baseline Model
Vertical Motion Test -engine not running /anti-roll bars
connected (Full Suspension Travel)
1bump steer
2bump camber
3bump spin
4lateral wheel centre compliance
Slateral tire contact patch compliance
6longitudinal wheel centre compliance
7lo ngitudinal ti re contact patch compl iance
ssuspensionrate
gride rate
irjtireradial rate
.eft
Front
Right
Front
Front
Left
Rear
kight
Rear
Rear
d eg/m
d eg/m
d eg/m
m m/m m
m m/m m
m m/m m
m m/m m
N/mm
N/mm
N/mm
-74278
-15.125
32.2636
-0.03821
-0 11686
0.04875
-0 14227
46.035
39.3942
273.191
10 6986
-16.7041
31 9273
0.03291
0 12108
0.06187
-0 13576
46.6785
39.7922
273006
-024976
-1.5771
-3.7763
-0.00426
-0.00592
001975
0.04438
379017
33.8601
309222
-0 13398
-1 6128
-3.9238
000113
0.00346
0 0192
0.03969
376159
33.5955
314.29
4) Suspension Dampers (Force-Velocity) Data
The front and rear suspension dampers characteristics were measured at Tenneco
Automotive Roehrig EMA damper dynamometer testing lab. Figure 4.18-170 and
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
JuneS, 2015
Page 927
Figure 4.18-171 show the front and rear suspension damper characteristics in terms of
force-velocity curves used in the baseline model.
«.«u.
Wt
I •
I
•iff
-y»
i»
w»
-:»
•»<) -1M -JM -M M K) 106 IW
Oapiwn«(iM}
Figure 4.18-170: Front Suspension Damper Characteristics
0.0
400 600 800
1,000 1,200 1,400
1,485.2
-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
-25.14 25.17
Displacement (urn)
Figure 4.18-171: Rear Suspension Damper Characteristics Baseline Model
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 928
5) Other Components
Surrogate information utilizing engineering judgment and historical data for the
following components was used as required to complete the model and achieve
correlation to K&C results:
• Bushings
• Steering System
• Jounce Bumpers
• Tires
• Other
6) Weight Estimations
The target mass, CG and inertias for the baseline ADAMS/Chassis model were the
measured data from VIMF. Targets for the Optimized version were based on the percent-
change as shown in Table 4.18-48 using the optimized full vehicle FEA model.
Table 4.18-48: Mass, Inertia and CG Targets for Baseline and Optimized Models
I/I
1
£
2 5
M "g
TS
fl
a
Configuration: 4x4, Crew Cab, 5.3L
Condition: Curb
Baseline Target (VIMF Measured)
Front Axle
Rear Axle
Front Axle
% of Baseline
RearAxle
% of Baseline
Total
% of Baseline
Total
(kg)
1443 B3
1341 63
Z4E5.40
1399.64
762ft
797.33
765ft
1B96.65
765ft
Total
(N)
14164
13Z1E
Z43BZ
137BB
7B1S
1B636
Dist.
53 154
41 954
5B. 054
4Z.35;
Unsprung
1653
Z153
3EO.O
131.4
61ifi
146. B
655ft
24B.2
655ft
Sprung
(kg)
1Z7B B
BZ66
Z105. 4
99B.Z
653. Z
154B.4
C5 Height
(mm)
71B.6
714.6
SL=-ft
Pitch Inertia
( kg-m^Z)
63S1
4734
73.7%
Yaw Inertia
(kg-m^Z)
67S1
4997
757ft
Roll Inertia
(kg-m"Z)
1393
795.3
72. y,c
7) Occupant and Cargo Positions
To establish occupant and cargo positions for the ADAMS/Chassis model, physical
measurements were taken as shown in Figure 4.18-172.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 929
Figure 4.18-172: Occupants Positions and Cargo Measurements
(Source: EDAG)
The occupant positions and cargo positions used in the model are given in Table 4.18-49.
Table 4.18-49: Occupant and Cargo Positions
Occupant Position
(vehicle coordinates)
Driver
Passenger
CenterFront
Left Rear
Right Rear
Center Rear
X
-3254
-3204
-3204
-2244
-2244
-2304
Y
-450
450
0
-450
450
0
Z
158
158
158
193,3
193.3
193.3
Cargo Position
(vehicle coordinates)
Rear WC
Delta
CargoCG
X
-971.9
135
-836.9
Z
-43&,6
742.5
305.9
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 930
Figure 4.18-173: Vehicle Dynamics Model
4.18.5.6.2 Vehicle Dynamic Results Comparison
MSC ADAMS/Chassis code was used to simulate the vehicle static and dynamics
characteristics of both baseline and optimized configurations. The results comparisons of
optimized (light-weight) vehicle model for different loading conditions are provided as
follows.
1) Static Vehicle Characteristics
The basic static vehicle and suspension characteristics are shown in Table 4.18-50. All
results assume maintaining baseline ride height at GVW.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 931
Table 4.18-50: Static Characteristics of Baseline and Optimized Models
Condition
Passe Tiers
Cargo
Axis Mass, CG, SSF
Front Axle
RearAxle
Total
CGHelgrrt
SSF
Ride Height
Front Ride Height (from "design")
Rear Rite height (fron "ceslgr ")
Front
Rear
Wheel Rate
Front
Rear
Ride Rate
Front
Rear
Ride Frequency (based on ri de rat
Front
Rear
Roll Rate (at the wheel)
Front
Rear
[kil
[kg]
[kg]
[mm]
[T/2H]
[mm]
[mm]
[N/mm]
[N/rnrn]
[N/mm]
[N/rnrn]
[N/mm]
[N/rnrn]
a)
[H!]
[H!]
[Nm/deg]
[Nm/deg]
Curb
0
0
1443.9
1039.3
2493.1
7186
1.137
17.1
57.9
135
37
-5.7
33.'J
33.1
3;. 3
:.:;
1.3r
2353
593
1-pass
1x75.25 kg
0
14917
1066.7
25544
725.2
1.136
12.1
54.4
135
37
45.4
33. 'J
33.:
3:'. 3
122
:.3i
2353
579
Baseline
2- pass
2x75. 25 kg
0
1539.6
10941
2633.7
7313
1.176
7.1
50.9
135
37
45.2
33.;
39.9
33.3
120
132
2349
573
5-pass
5x75. 25 kg
0
1623.7
1235.9
2959.6
749.8
1.147
•1.9
323
135
37
45.:
33.1
39.6
23.3
1.16
1.22
2342
546
GVW
5x75. 25 kg
314kg
1607.9
1566.2
3174.1
765.6
1.123
00
n.n
135
37
45.1
;-:.:
39.7
;;.2
1.17
1.23
2347
740
Hybrid-Aluminum
Curb
0
D
1-pass
1x75. 25 kg
0
2-pass
2x75. 25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75. 25 kg
0
GVW
5 X 75. 25 kg
314kg
11000
796.6
1896,6
7146
1.203
1147.9
924.0
19719
724.0
1193
1195.9
951.3
2047.2
732.4
1.174
1290.3
9929
2273.1
757.0
1136
12646
1323.0
2597.6
7761
1108
22.3
71.4
ICC
15.9
66.9
9.4
625
•20
39.3
0.3
•10
IOC'
S 23
100
29
100
29
IOC'
29
35.5
27.5
35. £
27.4
35.4
27.i
35.:
27.0
35.2
33.7
31.7
25.2
127
141
31.5
2;.:
123
139
313
:;.:
1.20
1.35
1905
490'
1759
494
1733
479
311
24.9
1.16
1.22
17 96
447
31.2
35.2
117
123
1730
632
• Rise-to-Curb is greater with the optimized model (lighter vehicle)
• CG height at the loaded conditions is higher - cargo is larger percentage of
overall sprung mass
• Optimized model shows significant reduction in spring rate and roll rate (to match
baseline performance) offer additional weight savings to the springs and anti-roll bar
themselves. Actual spring weight reduction requires a full design analysis to predict;
front ARB diameter is reduced by 3.5mm (approximately 10%) equating to a 15-
20% weight savings (approx. 2.6 kg)
2) Dynamic Characteristics
The following events were chosen to compare the Vehicle Dynamics performance of the
baseline and optimized models. These are standard events used in the development and
evaluation of high-CG vehicles and were chosen because they demonstrate key aspects of
vehicle behavior:
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 932
I. Constant Radius:
Vehicle is driven around a circle of constant radius (200ft or 61m) through the linear
handling range up to the limit of adhesion. This maneuver defines the steady-state
behavior of the vehicle through the linear range and includes the following metrics:
• Understeer Gradient
• Front and Rear Cornering Compliance
• Roll Gradient
A summary of On-Road dynamic characteristics for Constant Radius event is shown in
Table 4.18-51.
Table 4.18-51: Constant Radius Characteristics of Baseline and Optimized Models
Condition
Passengers
Cargo
Constant Radius
Roll Gradient (total)
Roll Gradient [body- on- chassis)
LoadTransferDist.
Front Weignt and Tires
RearWeigrrt and Tires
Front Roll Steer
Rear Roll Steer
Front Suspension Compliance
Rear Suspension Com pi iance
Upstream Steering System
Front Subtotal
Rear Subtotal
Total Understeer
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[% Front]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
[deg/G]
Baseline
l-pass
Ix 75.25 kg
0
2-pass
2x75.25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75.25 kg
0
GVW
5x75.25 kg
314kg
6.CC
464
61.33
5.69
-3.77
0.30
0.01
1.53
-0.33
-0.03
7.50
-4.15
3.35
6.31
4.90
61.61
6.00
-3.35
0.32
0.03
1.61
:041
-0.04
7.90
-422
3.6S
6.93
5.39
60.67
6.43
-4.20
0.35
0.17
1.74
-0.49
-0.05
3.46
-4.52
3.94
7.37
5.57
55.00
6.52
-5.14
0.35
0.33
1.73
-0.60
-0.03
3.57
-5.35
3.22
Hybrid-Aluminum
l-pass
1x75.25 kg
0
2-pass
2x75.25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75.25 kg
0
GVW
5x75.25 kg
314kg
B.B2
4.47
60.53
4.49
-3.34
0.35
-0.03
1.07
-0.31
0.06
5.96
-3.73
2.23
5.90
4.30
60.91
4.76
-3.40
0.37
-0.05
1.14
-0.33
0.03
6.30
-3.73
2.52
6.65
5.33
60.62
5.17
-3.67
0.40
0.10
1.27
-0.40
0.00
6.35
-3.97
2. SB
7.05
5.57
53.13
5.24
-4.49
0.43
0.39
1.23
-0.50
0.03
6.99
-4.60
2.39
From Table 4.18-51, it is observed that the optimized vehicle shows a reduced Linear-
Range Understeer. Less weight results in reduced cornering compliance effects from the
tires and reduced suspension compliance effects.
The Constant Radius event results are also plotted for Steering Wheel Angle (SWA) and
Front/Rear cornering compliance (in terms of Slip Angle) with respect to lateral
accelerations. Figure 4.18-174 shows the steering wheel angle comparison, and Figure
4.18-175 shows the slip angle comparison. The results are interpreted as acceptable.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 933
-500
Constant Radius
Steering Wheel Angle vs Ace Y
-1200
-0.7
-06
-05
-04 -03
Lateral Acceleration (g's)
-02
-0 '
Figure 4.18-174: Steering Wheel Angle of Baseline and Optimized Models
Constant Radius
Frt'Rear Slip Angle vs Lat Acceleration
--Hybnd-Alummum Rear
Baseline Front
Hybrid Aluminum Front
-0.7
-06
-05
-0.4 -0.3
Lateral Acceleration (g's)
-02
Figure 4.18-175: Front/Rear Cornering Compliance
Table 4.18-52 also shows the total understeer due to front and rear cornering.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 934
Table 4.18-52: Understeer of Baseline and Optimized Models
Condition: 2-Pass
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Front Cornering Compliance (deg/G)
Rear Cornering Compliance (deg/G)
Total Understeer @ Road Wheel (deg/G)
Baseline
7.90
-4.22
368
Optimized
6.30
-3.78
2.52
• The typical Total Understeer @ Road Wheel range for this type of vehicle would
be 2-5 deg/G
• Both the Baseline and Hybrid-Aluminum variants show acceptable performance.
II. J-Turn:
Vehicle driven in a straight line and a specified hand wheel angle (90, 180, 270, 360
degrees used for this study) is applied at a rate of 1,000 deg/sec and held. This maneuver
is used to help define the roll stability of high-CG vehicles and the acceptance criteria are
no simultaneous two-inch or greater lift of the vehicle's inside tires (two-wheel lift).
A summary of on-road dynamic characteristics for J-Turn event is shown in Table
4.18-53.
Table 4.18-53: J-Turn Tire Loads of Baseline and Optimized Models
Condition
Passengers
Cargo
J-Turn
Min. Combined Inside Tire Load
|90degSWA]
Min. Combined Inside Tire Load
(ISOdegSWA]
Min. Combined Inside Tire Load
|270degSWA]
Min. Combined Inside Tire Load
|360degSWA]
[N]
[N]
[N]
[N]
Baseline
1-pass
1x75.25 kg
0
2-pass
2x75.25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75.25 kg
0
GVW
5x75.25 kg
314kg
4613
3424
33S7
3434
4812
3432
3465
3566
5179
3919
373C
3365
5383
4695
4443
4525
Hybrid-Aluminum
l-pass
1x75.25 kg
0
2-pass
2x75.25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75.25 kg
0
GVW
5x75.25 kg
314kg
2678
1457
1416
1455
2763
1464
1425
1449
3237
1597
1561
1577
3455
2483
2401
2414
From Table 4.18-53 that the optimized vehicle shows a less combined inside tire load.
This is due to the large reduction in weight and similar CG height.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 935
The optimized model does not saturate the tires as quickly during the abrupt J-Turn
maneuver which contributes to additional load transfer.
The combined inside tire load trend of optimized model is shown in Figure 4.18-176
with respect to the baseline.
200000
J-Turn
Combined Inside Tire Load vs Time
150000
100000
50000
1.0
2.0 3.0
Time (sec)
4.0
50
Figure 4.18-176: Combined Tire Load
It is observed that the baseline and optimized vehicle show acceptable J-Turn
performance using a surrogate tire model with no simultaneous two-inch or greater lift of
the vehicle's inside tires (two-wheel lift).
III. Frequency Response:
Vehicle driven at a constant speed while a sinusoidal steering input of increasing
frequency is applied to achieve a specific G-level (0.32G @ 120kph was used for this
study). This maneuver is used to help define the steering response of the vehicle and
includes the following metrics.
• Gain (amount of response)
• Phase Lag (time delay of response)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 936
A summary of On-Road dynamic characteristics for J-Turn event is shown in Table
4.18-54.
Table 4.18-54: Frequency Response Characteristics of Baseline and Optimized Models
Condition
Passengers
Cargo
Frequency Response @ IMkph
Yaw Gain Steady State
Yaw Rate 45deg Phase Lag
[deE/s/lOOdegSWA]
Ens]
Baseline
l-pass
1x75.25 kg
0
2-pass
2x75.25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75.25 kg
0
GVW
5x75.25 kg
314kg
17.3
112.S
Hybrid-Aluminum
l-pass
1x75.25 kg
0
2-pass
2x75.25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75.25 kg
0
GVW
5x75.25 kg
314kg
21.3
100.S
From Table 4.18-54, it is observed that optimized vehicle shows higher Steady State
Yaw Gain, indicating more response than the baseline vehicle. Optimized vehicle also
shows lower Phase Lag, indicating quicker response to inputs than the baseline vehicle.
• Typical Steady State Yaw Gain range for this type of vehicle would be 15-25
deg/s/1 OOdegSWA - Baseline and optimized vehicles exhibit acceptable
performance.
• Typical Phase Lag range for this type of vehicle would be 90-115 milliseconds -
Baseline and optimized vehicles exhibit acceptable performance.
Other Results - Dynamic Characteristics
FMVSS126 Summary: FMVSS126 is the NHTSA-mandated test to evaluate the
effectiveness of a vehicle's Electronic Stability Control (ESC) system at preventing
"single-vehicle loss-of-control, run-off-the-road crashes, of which significant portions are
rollover crashes." (Source: NHTSA FMVSS126) The physical vehicle test is performed
with the ESC system fully functional which is beyond the scope of the Vehicle Dynamics
simulations performed in this study.
NHTSA Fishhook: Fishhook is a test used by NHTSA to evaluate a "vehicle's
susceptibility to an on-road un-tripped rollover in which the vehicle is subjected to
tire/road interface friction forces in extreme maneuvers, but not to the much greater
forces caused by off-road tripping mechanisms." (Source: NHTSA) The physical vehicle
test is performed with the ESC system fully functional which is beyond the scope of the
Vehicle Dynamics simulations performed in this study.
Static Stability Factor (SSF): NHTSA has declared a key contributor to vehicle rollover
risk is a vehicle's SSF, defined as vehicle track width/ (2 x CG height). For the different
variants in this study, the SSF of each is summarized in Table 4.18-55.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 937
Table 4.18-55: Static Stability Factor Characteristics of Baseline and Optimized Models
Condition
Passenger;
Cargo
Axle Mass, CG,SSF
CG Height
Track Wlrftr (average)
SSF
[mm]
[mm]
[T/2H]
Baseline
Curb
0
0
1-paii
1x75.25 kg
0
2- pass
2x75. 25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75. 25 kg
0
GVW
5x75. 25 kg
314kg
7186
1719.8
1157
725. i
1719.8
1186
7313
1719.9
1176
745.8
1719.S
1.147
765.6
1719.8
1.123
Hybrid-Aluminum
Curb
0
0
1-paii
1x75. 25 kg
0
2-pass
2x75. 25 kg
0
5-pass
5x75. 25 kg
0
GVW
5 X 75. 25 kg
314kg
7146
1719.8
1209
724.0
171 3.S
1188
732.4
1719.8
1.174
757.0
1719.S
1136
7761
171 3.S
1108
• Based on the minimal differences in SSF shown in Table 4.18-55, it is judged
that the ESC systems of the optimized vehicle is feasible to be successfully
developed to pass FMVSS126 requirements and the NHTSA Fishhook test.
Overall summary and additional considerations of the effects on Vehicle Dynamics and
the Chassis system of the optimized vehicle are as follows:
The ADAMS/Chassis model predicts acceptable performance for Constant Radius, J-
Turn and Frequency Response tests.
Additionally, overall weight reduction has beneficial effects for Vehicle Dynamics in the
following areas:
• Sprung and unsprung masses are easier to control resulting in improved roll
damping and ride characteristics
• Lower weight and roll/pitch/yaw inertias allow more opportunity for trade-off
between steering performance and roll/yaw stability
• Reduced loads into suspension and body components allowing a better trade-off
between Ride/Handling/Steering and Durability requirements
When maintaining the same load-carrying capability and cargo location on a lighter
vehicle, it generally has to operate through a wider range of suspension travel. This can
have effects on:
• Rise-to-Curb and reserve travel at various operating conditions
• CG height change with load
Reduced spring rates and front anti-roll bar diameter are required to maintain the same
ride frequency and roll gradient of the lightweight variant. This offers additional
'secondary' weight savings due to lighter components. Changes are as follows:
• Front spring rate reduced by 26% - actual weight reduction estimate requires
design analysis
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 938
• Rear spring rate reduced by 22% - actual weight reduction estimate requires
design analysis
• Front anti-roll bar (ARB) diameter reduced by 3.5mm (approximately 10%) - 15-
20% weight savings (approximately 2.6 kg)
4.18.5.7 Frame Durability Performance Results
To assess the durability of the frame structure a process was developed to build a
correlated Multi-Body Dynamics Model (MBD) in Motion View and use this model to
generate fatigue loads for analysis of both the baseline and new lightweight frame
designs. In order to do this, suspension geometry was calculated from CMM data
collected at the MGA proving grounds, a kinematic suspension model was created,
bushing rates / curves were developed to correlate the model with measured K&C data,
wheel spindle accelerations were collected at the MGA proving grounds, analytical
loadcases were developed and validate by comparison with the MGA proving ground
data, loadcases were defined in terms of corner weights so they could be adjusted
appropriately with the vehicle weight reductions and finally the loadcases had to be
checked to ensure they were properly scaled such that the baseline frame passed when
performing the fatigue analysis.
In developing this process some basic assumptions were made. These included the CMM
data accuracy was ±3 mm (hardpoints could move within this range to better match
kinematics data) and the frame and part stiffness were not included in the model.
For this study, the final assumption was made that the fatigue performance of the frame
would correspond to the overall full vehicle durability performance. The EDAG CAE
frame model was then evaluated for fatigue with these results considered representative
of the overall vehicle durability performance. The bases of this assumption are that with
all of the input loads being transmitted through the frame and with the isolation of the
cabin failures seen in the frame would drive the overall vehicle performance. It is
recognized that this is an over simplification of vehicle structural durability but within the
scope of the program this approach was felt to be reasonable for the various comparative
studies. Therefore, based on this simply assumption, only the frame was evaluated for
fatigue loads.
The fatigue analysis of frame involved the following steps:
1) Develop a Multi-Body Dynamics Model
2) Develop analytical Loadcases
3) Perform Stress and Fatigue analysis
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 939
1) Multi-Body Dynamics Model Development (MBD)
For fatigue analysis, loads were generated using multi-body dynamics simulation
software called Altair Motion View. The suspension geometry was developed from the
CMM data collected at the MGA proving ground. Bushing rates/curves were developed
and correlated with the measured K & C data. The developed MBD model is shown in
Figure 4.18-177. An example of the correlation between the Motion View and K & C
data is shown in Figure 4.18-178.
Figure 4.18-177: Front and Rear Suspension (Motion View Model)
Wheel Travel vs. Steer Angle
Motion View K&C
Bump Steer
Ur.l
degm
Motion.
View
-8.12
<*C
-c i.i
-9.0S
Figure 4.18-178: Motion View versus K&C data comparison
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 940
2) Analytical Loadcases
Frame loads were generated from an initial set of static loadcases based on experiences
from previous vehicle development programs. In the static loadcases, static loads were
inputted at the wheel center, tire patch and shock attachments. The loads applied to the
shock attachments were not dynamic shock loads. They were surrogate forces to account
for the fact that these were static loadcases and dynamic shock loads were therefore zero.
Additionally, for this study the body was considered fixed to the ground. Figure 4.18-179
and Figure 4.18-180 show the front and rear suspension loading arrangement. The model
was solved for static equilibrium and force/moment reactions were computed at all
attachment locations. Loads for the lightweight models were scaled based on the mass.
Front Suspension
LAT
• Lateral loads input at contact patch
• Surrogate shock loads input at shock
attachments
Vertical loads input at wheel center
Impact loads input at wheel center
Brake loads input at contact patch
Figure 4.18-179: Front Suspension
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 941
Rear Suspension
• Vertical loads input at wheel center
• Impact loads input at wheel center
1 Brake loads input at contact patch
• Lateral loads input at contact patch
• Surrogate shock loads input at
shock attachments
Figure 4.18-180: Rear Suspension
Inputs in static loadcases were defined as multipliers of vehicle corner weight. These
multipliers were then scaled in an iterative process such that the loads generated allowed
the baseline frame to pass fatigue. The same multipliers were used for both the baseline
and lightweight optimized frame. As a result, these loads were scaled proportionally
when applied to lightweight optimized frame.
Analytical loadcases were validated by comparison with equivalent static loads
determined from accelerometer measurements taken at the MGA proving grounds. The
instrumentation and proving ground events are shown in Image 4.18-2 and Figure
4.18-181, respectively.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 942
Instrumentation: Left Front Spindle Accelerometer
LF Spindle Accelerometer XYZ
Image 4.18-2: Instrumentation - Left Front Spindle Accelerometer
(Source: EDAG)
35'" Street Railroad Crossing
MGA Proving Ground Events
*"K
MMM
550 mm Tramp20 mph 760mm Pothole 10mph
Barrel Hoops 20 mpti
Body Twist 12 mph
Cobblestone 20 mph
Decel65mph
Pothole Lane 15 mph
Sweeping Turn 25 mph Washboard 30 mph
Figure 4.18-181: MGA Proving Ground Events
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 943
3) Stress and Fatigue Analysis
The baseline and lightweight optimized frame FEA Models were set up in Altair
Hypermesh. Figure 4.18-182 shows loading and constraints in the front loadcases and
Figure 4.18-183 shows loading and constraints in the rear loadcases.
Front Load Cases - Loading & Constraints
Figure 4.18-182: FEA Model: Front Loadcases
Rear Load Cases - Loading & Constraints
Figure 4.18-183: FEA Model: Rear Loadcases
After model set up, Stress analysis was done using Altair's Optistruct solver with the
front and rear loadcases shown above. Then Code Design Life solver was used to
calculate fatigue life cycles in the front and rear loading events. Figure 4.18-184 shows
stress and fatigue analysis results of front curb loading event in the baseline frame and
Figure 4.18-185 shows stress and fatigue analysis results of front curb loading event in
the lightweight optimized frame.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 944
Contour Plot
EXmtrt SlrntM (20 «. 30M»onMt»«. Mj,)
Analysis systtm
Simplf Average
E2252E«Q2
2002E.02
f 752E<02
— IWIE«C2
-I2S16«02
-IOOIE«02
-7507E»01
-5005E.01
-2502E«01
-306SE-12
•
MJI = 22526-02
No4tl436S8
Mn = 30656-12
Mod* 223887
Subcase 1 (Cub) SlMic Atulysis
Su6cas< 2 (Cutb_FTG) Faigg» Analysis
Figure 4.18-184: Baseline Frame: Stress and Fatigue Results
Contour Plot
Etomtnl Stresses (20 & 3D)(vonMises. Ma«)
Analysis system
Simple Avenge
E2777E«02
2468E«02
2160E-KC
— ISSIE-tCG
«-1543E-K)2
1-I234E-H32
«-9 256E*Ot
1-6 I70E<01
1~3086E
-------
FRNT BDY MNT BRCKT-LH
Clill Su*CM«2ff«MT»
•MANHM
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 945
#3 BDY MNT BRCKT-RH
Event Front Twist Jounce
. -. ,
Event Front Twist Rebound
Figure 4.18-186: Lightweight Optimized Frame: Front Loads Results
In above example, the fatigue life of both mounts can be improved by minor trim and
weld changes.
In the rear loadcase events, three components (#1 LHS cargo box mount bracket, #1 RHS
cargo box mount bracket and the left hand front spring mount bracket) showed
performance below baseline levels as shown in the example in Figure 4.18-187.
#1 BX MNT BRCKT - LH
Event: Rear Chuckhole Fore Right
Figure 4.18-187: Lightweight Optimized Frame: Rear Loads Results
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 946
It should be noted that if all three of these components required up-gauging the overall
potential increase in the mass of the frame would only be approximately 1.5 kg.
However, before increasing the mass for these components it is recommended that the
lightweight design be tested with the proposed gauges prior to making any changes.
Therefore, this design and associated mass savings for the lightweight optimized model is
judged to be acceptable when including the minor changes noted above and pending
actual physical testing.
4.18.5.8 Cost Impact
4.18.5.8.1 Final Optimized Vehicle
The final optimized vehicle included the aluminum parts. Therefore, in addition to the
parts manufacturing changes, assembly changes were also observed in number of
assemblies. The assembly cost of replacing steel grades with aluminum were calculated
based on the number of parts and connections in the assembly, type of connections,
assembly equipment and tooling. The baseline vehicle assemblies were made up of
resistance spot welding (RSW) whereas the optimized vehicle assemblies of aluminum
parts were made up of self-piercing rivets (SPR), adhesives and bolted fasteners.
The assembly process of the steel parts in the baseline and the optimized vehicle were
assumed to be same and there was no difference in the assembly cost. Similarly, the
assembly process of doors and hood were assumed to be same with hemming and
fastening irrespective of the steel version in baseline and aluminum version in optimized
vehicle, therefore there was no difference noted in the assembly cost for the doors and
hood. In the case of the Frame assembly, the steel cross member parts in baseline model
and the corresponding aluminum cross members in the optimized model are bolted
assemblies and therefore the assembly process in both models are assumed to be same
resulting no difference in the assembly cost.
The only assemblies listed in Table 4.18-56 were included in the assembly cost
estimation.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 947
Table 4.18-56: Assemblies with Aluminum Parts for Cost Estimation
Assembly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1
Connection Type
(Baseline)
Connection Type
(Optimized)
Body Structure Subsystem
Box Assembly Pick-Up
Cabin
Panel Fender Outer LH
Panel Fender Outer RH
Radiator Structure
IP XMbr Beam Assembly
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
RSW
RSW
RSW
RSW
RSW
RSW
RSW
SPR
SPR
SPR
SPR
SPR & Fastening
SPR & Fastening
SPR & Fastening
Body Closures Subsystem
Cargo Box Gate
RSW
SPR
Bumpers Subsystem
Bumper Front
Bumper Rear
RSW
RSW
SPR
SPR
In case of the assembly cost, the material price of RSW is assumed to be $0.45/electrode
and material price of SPR is assumed to be $0.04/rivet [52] The material prices were
calculated by taking the electrode/rivet consumptions for each assembly. The other cost
components such as Labor, Energy, Equipment, Tooling, Building, Maintenance,
Overhead and Manufacturing CC>2 emissions costs were calculated by using the built-in
formulas within the cost model spread sheet using the inputs listed in Appendix Body
and Frame Supporting Data, Section 7.2.9. Additionally, in the optimized model the
assembly of the aluminum parts included adhesive bonding at all SPR areas, resulting in
an estimated adhesive length of 180 meters. The cost of adhesive was assumed to be $20
per kg. The assumptions for estimating these costs are provided in Table 7.2-3 through
Table 7.2-10 in Appendix Section 7.2 Body and Frame Supporting Data.
52 Paul Briskham, Nicholas Blundell, Lin Han, Richard Hewitt and Ken Young., "Comparison of self-pierce
riveting, resistance spot welding and spot friction joining for Aluminum automotive sheet.", SAE 2006
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 948
The manufacturing and assembly cost impacts of the final optimized vehicle are shown in
Table 4.18-57 and Table 4.18-58.
Table 4.18-57: Manufacturing Cost Impact of Optimized Aluminum Vehicle with HSS/Aluminum
Frame
:stimated Mass Estimated Cost Average
Reduction [kg] Impact [$] costs/kilogram[$/kg]
Box Assembly Pick-up
Frame Assembly
Cabin
Panel Fender Outer LH
Panel Fender Outer RH
Radiator Structure
IP XMbr Beam Assembly
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Hood Assembly w/o Hinges
Door Assembly Front LH
Door Assembly Front RH
Door Assembly Rear LH
Door Assembly Rear RH
Cargo Box -Tail Gate
T llldib utrurt
EIHHI
Body Structure
34.4
23.7
75.4
7.5
7.0
5.7
5.8
5.9
Body Closures
11.0
10.2
10.1
7.0
7.2
8.6
•ctstr - uusa
decrease
Subsystems
-216.44
-54.42
-381.31
-13.81
-13.27
-4.83
-7.55
-38.30
Subsystems
-35.19
-58.99
-58.73
-49.31
-49.14
-22.77
-6.29
-2.30
-5.06
-1.84
-1.90
-0.85
-1.30
-6.49
-3.20
-5.78
-5.81
-7.04
-6.83
-2.65
Bumpers Subsystems
Bumper Front
Bumper Rear
Totals:
9.9
6.5
235.9
-19.72
-42.64
-1,066.42
-1.99
-6.56
-4.52
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 949
Table 4.18-58: Assembly Cost Impact of Optimized Aluminum Vehicle with HSS/Aluminum Frame
Assembly Cost Going from Steel to Aluminum
Assembly Baseline Optimized
^^m
Cost Impact
Body Structure Subsystems
Box assy Pick-up
Cabin
Panel Fender Outer LH
Panel Fender Outer RH
Radiator Structure
IP XMem Beam assy
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
18.71 36.59
87.52 177.04
5.30 9.25
4.38 7.91
5.30 9.25
8.23 15.70
10.89 2108
-17.88
-89.52
-3.95
-3.53
-3.95
-7.47
-10.19
Body Closures Subsystems
Cargo Box -Gate
3.79 6.17
-2.38
Bumpers Subsystems
Bumper Front
Bumper Rear
Adhesive
Totals:
"+" cost decrease,"-" cost increase
3.99 6.82
3.79 6.21
0 57.60
151.90 353.62
-2.83
-2.42
-57.60
-201.72
From the information in the tables, the overall weight savings on the light weight vehicle
is 235.9 kg, with an incremental manufacturing cost of $1,066.42 ($4.52 per kg) and an
incremental assembly cost of $201.72 ($0.85 per kg). The total increase in cost being
$5.37 per kg.
4.18.6 Secondary Mass Reduction/Compounding
Table 4.18-59 summarizes the assignments of primary and secondary mass savings for
the major Body and Frame Systems. Primary mass savings is defined as the mass a
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 950
component or system can be reduced without impacting the functionality or overall
performance of the baseline vehicle or component. This would typically be done through
design and/or material changes. Secondary mass savings is defined as the mass reduction
of a component or system as a direct result of an overall mass reduction in other areas.
This allows the component or system to maintain the functionality or performance of the
baseline vehicle while achieving a mass reduction. No additional analyses were done to
determine the splits in primary/secondary percentages for the individual components
within the systems.
Table 4.18-59: Vehicle Secondary Mass Summary - Body and Frame Systems
Body and Frame Subsystems
Body - Closures
Cabin - Structure
Cargo Box - Closure
Cargo Box - Structure
Frame
Bumpers
Primary
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Secondary
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
The body closure subsystem includes the doors, fenders, and hood. The mass reductions
accomplished on the body closures were classified as primary mass savings since the
gross vehicle mass does not play a significant role in the performance targets of these
systems. This is the same for the cargo box subsystem - closures and structure. In
addition, the cargo box structure is expected to meet the same carrying criteria as in the
baseline design. This expected performance requirement outweighs any potential mass
reduction from the cargo box.
The assignments for the cabin structure and the frame subsystem were not as clear and as
a result additional CAE analyses needed to be performed.
The mass reduced cabin structure design was installed into the baseline model and
evaluated against the results of the FMVSS 214 5th Pole Impact crash test, the IIHS
MDB Side Impact crash test and FMVSS 216a Roof Crush test. The results are shown in
Figure 4.18-188 through
Figure 4.18-190.
-------
A
L
XT
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 951
Original
Baseline
Baseline with Redesigned Cabin
Intrusions are less with the redesigned cabin as seen in the above section
Figure 4.18-188: FMVSS 214 5th Pole Impact - Results
i Original
Baseline
Baseline with Redesigned Cabin
Intrusions are less with the redesigned cabin as seen in the above section
Figure 4.18-189: IIHS MDB Side Impact - Results
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 952
5-
4-
o
1
i
n
0
/
//
/
/
^~
/X
'
^^X"
^
/^
.
X
^x^
r^
/"
7
^v-
^_
/-
^ .
\J ^***J
P
\
^^
^"7^
- Baseline with Optimized Cab
s-^x
W X,
20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
~-^/-
/
^A
|2.s|
120 14
The baseline with redesigned cabin has a higher roof strength to weight ratio
Figure 4.18-190: FMVSS 216a Roof Crush - Results
The vehicle results with only the redesigned cabin for FMVSS 214 5th Pole Impact crash
test, the IIHS MDB Side Impact crash test and FMVSS 216a Roof Crush test show better
performance when compared against the original baseline vehicle results. Therefore, it
can be considered that the mass savings in the redesigned cabin is not a result of the
overall mass reduction and can be classified as primary mass savings.
The mass reduced frame design was then installed into the original baseline model and
evaluated against the baseline results for the FMVSS 208 Frontal Impact test and the
IIHS Frontal Impact (ODB) test. The results of these comparisons are shown in Table
4.18-60 and
Figure 4.18-191.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 953
Table 4.18-60: FMVSS 208 Frontal Impact - Results
General Index
Compartment Intrusions
Event
Max Acceleration (Average LH/RH) (g)
Dynamic Crush (Average LH/RH) (mm)
Time to Zero Velocity (Average LH/RH)
(ms)
Door Opening (A mm)
Footrest (mm)
Driver Toepan Left (mm)
Driver Toepan Center (mm)
Driver Toepan Right (mm)
Baseline
Results
38.0
655.3
75.8
7.6
50.5
53.3
61.4
57.7
Baseline with
Redesigned Frame
Results
38.7
768.2
84.0
8.7
48.7
76.7
113.0
123.2
IIHS Structural Rating
Baseline
Baseline with Optimized Frame
Footrest LeftTp CenterTp
The baseline with the redesigned Frame shows an increase in intrusion.
Figure 4.18-191: IIHS Frontal Impact (ODB) - Results
Substituting the baseline frame with the redesigned frame saved 23.7kg of mass but the
test results indicates a reduction in the load capacity of the front rails. With the mass of
the vehicle otherwise unchanged, the performance in both FMVSS 208 Frontal Impact
and IIHS Frontal Impact (ODB) is degraded. The FMVSS 208 Frontal Impact results
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 954
show higher intrusions in the driver toepan area, larger dynamic crash which tends to a
slightly higher max acceleration late in the event and a less efficient rail buckling mode.
The IIHS Frontal Impact (ODB) results show higher intrusions in the footrest, driver
toepan and right IP points along with a larger dynamic crash with earlier peak
acceleration. Therefore, the redesigned frame installed in the baseline vehicle does not
maintain the baseline specifications and is assigned as secondary mass savings.
The bumpers were also included as secondary mass savings as they function with the
frame during crash and their performance during the FMVSS 581 Bumper Testing is
impacted by the overall vehicle weight. Further analyses may reveal a portion of the
mass could be divided between primary and secondary for some of these components,
although this analysis was not pursued.
5. Supplementary Analyses
5.1 Additional Weight Savings Ideas Not Implemented - Overview
During the mass reduction idea generation phase of the project (Step 2 of overall project
methodology), numerous mass reduction ideas were generated. For various reasons (e.g.
performance degradation risk, implementation readiness risk, unit cost increase, better
value ideas "$/kg"), many of the ideas were not selected for the final vehicle solution.
In the Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group, many of the ideas considered
were discussed in their respective vehicle system white paper section (Section 4, Mass
Reduction and Cost Analyses - Vehicle Systems White Papers). Although not used in the
final analysis, some ideas are very exciting and deserve additional discussion.
For the Body and Frame Evaluation Group, many mass reduction iterations and
considerations were also developed and assessed. Two major iterations not included in
the final vehicle solution were a high strength steel (HSS) intensive body and cargo box
iteration and aluminum intensive frame iteration. Although these iterations were not
considered prime path, the team did create two alternative vehicle solutions which
included these subsystem alternatives. No other subsystem/system component changes
were made as part of these iterations. For example the same brake system mass reduction
ideas included in the final mass reduction solution were also used in the "HSS Intensive"
and "Aluminum Intensive" iterations. In the context of this analysis "Intensive" indicates
the majority of components were made from one material type. For example in the HSS
Intensive iteration, the majority of the frame structure is made from HSS, with a couple
cross-member components made from aluminum.
These two iterations were also used in the development of the final cost curve. In Table
5.1-1 below the results for the final/primary vehicle solution (aka, Aluminum Intensive
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 955
Body and HSS intensive Frame) are shown alongside the HSS Intensive and Aluminum
Intensive Body and Frame iterations. For the HSS Intensive and Aluminum Intensive
iterations, the NVH counter measures were scaled relative to the final vehicle solution
mass reduction. The "HSS Intensive Body and Frame" NVH counter measures equaled
42.1 kg at a cost increase of $126.41. The "Aluminum Intensive Body and Frame" NVH
counter measures equaled 52.7 kg at a cost increase of $158.02
In the Subsections 5.2 (Powertrain, Chassis and Trim) and 5.3 (Body and Frame)
additional details on alternative mass reduction ideas are presented.
Table 5.1-1: Vehicle Mass Reduction and Cost Comparison of Three Vehicle Solution Alternatives
CO
*<
— (fl
£ Description
D
Mass Reduction Impact by Vehicle System
Base
Mass
"kg"
Mass
Reduction
"kg"(1>
Cost
Impact
NIDMC
"$" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
NIDMC
"$/kg" (2)
Cost/
Kilogram
NIDMC +
Tooling
"$/kg" (2)
System
Mass
Reduction
"%"
Vehicle
Mass
Reduction
"%"
..•.'••,-• . : . :' • •• :
a Analysis Totals Without NVH Counter Measures
b. Vehicle NVH Counter Measures (Mass & Cost )
c. Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures
2454.4
0.0
2454.4
560.9
-50.0
510.9
(Decrease)
-2073.82
-150.00
-2223.82
(Increase)
iy and Frame
a. Analysis Totals Without NVH Counter Measures
b Vehicle NVH Counter Measures (Mass & Cost )
c Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures
2454.0
0.0
2454.0
472.7
-42.1
430.6
(Decrease]
-1209.00
-126.41
-1335.41
(Increase)
1500 Series Ch tensive Body and Frame
a. Analysis Totals Without NVH Counter Measures
b Vehicle NVH Counter Measures (Mass & Cost )
c. Analysis Totals With NVH Counter Measures
2454.0
00
2454.0
590.9
-52.7
538.2
(Decrease)
-2504.26
-158 02
-2662.29
(Increase!
-3.70
n/a
-4.35
(Increase)
-2.56
n/a
-3.10
(Increase)
-4.24
n/a
-4.95
(Increase)
-3.69
na
-4.35
(Increase)
-2.55
na
-3.09
(Increase)
-4.23
n/a
-4.94
(Increase)
n/a
na
n/a
n/a
na
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
22.9%
na
20.8%
19.3%
na
17.5%
24.1%
n/a
21.9%
r(1) Negative value (i.e., -X.XX ) represents an increase in mass
'(2) Negative value (i.e., -$X.XX) represents an increase in cost
5.2 Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group Ideas Not Implemented
Replacing cast iron lower control arms with magnesium will result in a mass savings of
approximately 5.8 kg per control arm at a cost hit of $8.00 per control arm. General
Motors China Advanced Technical Center (ATC) announced in May 2012 that it had
successfully cast a prototype magnesium alloy control arm and noted that the part was
30% lighter than a similar part made from aluminum. Although the cost of this change
would be $1.38 per kg, which was viable from a cost perspective, the idea was not
selected because it is a relatively new technology that caused some concern as to its
market readiness for light-duty trucks. Therefore, because of the certainty of forged
aluminum control arms in a light-duty truck application, the forged aluminum lower
control arms were selected.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 956
Using carbon fiber wheels instead of aluminum was an option. Changing the wheels to
carbon fiber will save approximately 6 kg per wheel with an estimated cost increase of
$600.00 per wheel. Carbon Revolution already sells carbon fiber wheels to high end
sports cars such as the Porsche 911 for approximately $15,000 per set. BMW recently
revealed during BMW's Innovation days in Munich that they will manufacture a carbon
fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) wheel for their BMW i3 and i8 electric cars. The wheels,
according to Auto Express, will either be all CFRP or will use a CFRP rim with alloy
spokes. The full-CFRP wheel is 35% lighter than a forged alloy wheel, the hybrid alloy
and CFRP wheel is 25% lighter. With a cost of $100 per kg this idea was not selected due
to the high cost. Instead, an ultra-lightweight forged aluminum mono-block wheel was
implemented.
With respect to the engine system, 113 ideas were brainstormed for engine
lightweighting; 43 of the ideas brainstormed were selected as viable solutions. Reasons
for why an idea or ideas were not selected included: greater mass savings would be
achieved with another idea, excessive cost, or durability concerns. For example, the
racing industry has developed a variety of engine lightweighting and performance
enhancing technologies that have value for racing but are cost limited for production
lightweighting.
Polyamide engine mounts as a replacement for metal have been proven in passenger car
applications. These mounts can save both mass and cost but have yet to be proven in a
truck application and therefore were not selected to replace the Silverado stamped steel
engine mounts.
Titanium connecting rods have been used to reduce mass and increase performance of
high-end production vehicles. Replacing the Silverado's powder metal connecting rod
with titanium saves 2.0 kg and increases cost by $101.00 per vehicle. This idea was not
selected due to the cost of $50.28 per kg.
Titanium as a replacement for stainless steel in engine valves saves mass and improves
performance. Titanium valves applied to the Silverado saves approximately 1 kg at a cost
of $28.00. This technology was not selected due to the cost of $9.61 per kg
Aluminum metal matrix composite wrist pins have been used in racing applications as a
replacement for steel. Applied to the Silverado this technology saves 0.8 kg at a cost of
$48.00 per vehicle. This technology was not selected due to the cost of $25 per kg.
For additional details on mass reduction ideas considered, please refer to the respective
vehicle system in Section 4.
5.3 Frame and Body Evaluation Group Ideas Not Implemented
As discussed in Section 4, the final vehicle solution contained an aluminum intensive
body and high strength steel intensive frame. During the optimization process the team
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 957
started by investigating more conservative approaches to reducing mass in the Body
System Group -A- and Frame Systems by initially focusing on HSS substitution, gauge
optimization, tailor rolled blanks, tailor welded blanks, etc. With concerns that the
minimum 20% vehicle mass reduction may not be achieved, the team decided to pursue
some additional light-weighting alternatives. This included design iterations with
significant aluminum use in the cabin and cargo box structures, to more extreme
iterations which included the aluminum frame consideration. Additional details on both
of these iterations are included below.
5.3.1 HSS/AHSS Body Structures (Cabin and Cargo/Box Assemblies)
The HSS Intensive design made significant use of HSS for the cabin, cargo/box assembly
pickup and frame assembly. The weight reduction of the HSS intensive vehicle is shown
in comparison to the baseline and final solution vehicle in Table 5.3-1. In this iteration
many of the other subsystems including the closure and bumper subsystems were
common with those used in the "Final Solution". For reference the closure subsystems
were all redesigned in aluminum. Further optimization may have been possible with the
HSS intensive integration, though because it was removed from the detailed analysis as
part of the down-selection process, complete feasibility and optimization was not
completed.
The decrease in mass savings, relative to the final solution containing aluminum body
structures, was 88.2 kg (80.3 kg w/ NVH counter measure). In terms of impact on overall
vehicle mass reduction, 3.3% less mass reduction would be achieved with a HSS body
structure versus aluminum body structure. Though financially, the integration of an
advance HSS versus aluminum body structure would yield a savings of $888 ($864
w/NVH counter measure).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 958
Table 5.3-1: Mass and Cost Summary for HSS Intensive Vehicle
Current Silverado Models - Mass
System
BOX ASY PICK-UP
FRAME ASY
CABIN
PANEL FENDER OUTER LH
PANEL FENDER OUTER RH
Radiator Structure
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Sub-total
BUMPER FRONT
BUMPER REAR
HOOD ASV WITHOUT HINGES
DOOR ASV FRONT LH
DOOR ASV FRONT RH
DOOR ASVREARRH
Cargo Box Gate
Sub-total
Total
Baseline Model
(kg)
108.3
242.0
207.2
14.9
14.0
12.9
12.1
611.4
28.5
19.9
22.7
29.0
28.9
22.0
22.2
18.8
192.0
803.4
HSS Intensive1
(kg)
95.7
211.4
194.6
11.1
10.5
8.9
7.8
540.0
18.6
13.4
11.7
18.8
18.8
15.0
15.0
10.2
121.5
661.5
Final Solution2
(kg)
73.9
218.3
131.8
7.4
7.0
7.2
6.2
451.8
18.6
13.4
11.7
18.8
18.8
15.0
15.0
10.2
121.5
573.3
Delta Mass
HSS Intensive1
(kg)
12.6
30.6
12.6
3.8
3.5
4.0
4.3
71.4
9.9
6.5
11.0
10.2
10.1
7.0
7.2
8.6
70.5
141.9
Final Solution2
(kg)
34.4
23.7
75.4
7.5
7.0
5.7
5.9
159.6
9.9
6.5
11.0
10.2
10.1
7.0
7.2
8.6
70.5
230.1
Delta Cost
HSS Intensive3
(S)
18.89
-43.29
-17.73
-2.63
-2.45
3.28
6.44
-37.49
-23.88
-46.27
-35.18
-59.15
-58.57
-48.53
-49.91
-26.35
-347.84
-385.3
Final Solution"
(S)
-241.45
-54.42
-505.28
-19.60
-18.30
-10.58
-52.59
-902.22
-23.88
-46.27
-35.18
-59.15
-58.57
-48.53
J19.91
-26.35
-347.84
-1250.1
Cost/Kilogram
HSS Intensive9
(S/kg)
1.50
-1.41
-1.41
-0.69
-0.70
0.82
1.50
-0.53
-2.41
-7.12
-3.20
-5.80
-5.80
-6.93
-6.93
-3.06
-4.93
-2.7
Final Solution3
(S/kg)
-7.02
-2.30
-6.70
-2.61
-2.61
-1.86
-8.91
-5.65
-2.41
-7.12
-3.20
-5. SO
-5.80
•6.93
-6.93
-3.06
-4.93
-5.4
1 - "HSS Intensive" iteration consisted of s.
2 - "Final Solution" consisted of HSS Intensive
3 - Negative cost represents a cost increase
ertrain, Chassis
Frame and Aluminum
ndTrimEvaluatio
Intensive Body
Group mass-reduction ideas as in the "Final Solution"
5.3.2 Aluminum Intensive Frame
To push the mass reduction mass reduction envelop further, the team investigated an
"Aluminum Intensive" iteration which looked at the possibility of replacing the steel
frame design, mostly comprised of HSS steel (in the final solution), with an aluminum
design. Some other minor BIP changes were also made as part of this iteration.
The manufacturing possibilities of an all-aluminum frame were not highly investigated as
the cost and short-term feasibility were less appealing than the upgraded HSS version.
However the team wanted to understand what the future would look like in terms of
weight reduction and costs for an aluminum frame. Table 5.3-2 presents the additional
mass savings and cost impact relative to the baseline (i.e., production stock Silverado)
vehicle. The aluminum frame version included many of the same light-weight
components as put through in the final solution as shown in the table. It should be noted
that the "Aluminum Intensive" iteration was not fully optimized and as such the mass
reduction numbers and costs are consider good engineering estimates only.
Looking at the impact of the aluminum frame conversion, an additional 30kg (27.3 kg w/
NVH counter measure) of mass was saved. The Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing
Cost impact of the aluminum frame, relative to the HSS version, was nearly $430 ($438.5
w/NVH counter measure).
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 959
Table 5.3-2: Weight and Cost Impact of Aluminum Intensive Iteration
Current Silverado Models - Mass
System
BOX ASY PICK-UP
FRAME ASY
CABIN
PANEL FENDER OUTER LH
PANEL FENDER OUTER RH
Radiator Structure
Extra Cabin - Radiator Support
Sub-total
BUMPER FRONT
BUMPER REAR
HOOD AS WITHOUT HINGES
DOOR AS FRONT LH
DOOR AS FRONT RH
DOOR AS REARLH
DOOR AS REARRH
largo Box Gate
Sub-total
Total
Baseline Model
(Kg)
108.3
242.0
207.2
14.9
14.0
12.9
12.1
611.4
28.5
19.9
22.7
29.0
28.9
22.0
22.2
18.8
192.0
803.4
Aluminum
Intensive1
(Kg)
73.9
184.7
131.8
9.2
8.8
7.2
421.8
18.6
13.4
11.7
18.8
18.8
15.0
15.0
10.2
121.5
543.3
Final Solution2
(kg)
73.9
218.3
131.8
7.4
7.0
7.2
451.8
18.6
13.4
11.7
18.8
18.8
15.0
15.0
10.2
121.5
573.3
Delta Mass
Aluminum
Intensive1
(Kg)
34.4
57.3
75.4
5.7
5.2
5.7
189.6
9.9
6.5
11.0
10.2
10.1
7.0
7.2
70.5
260.1
Final Solution2
(kg)
34.4
23.7
75.4
7.5
7.0
5.7
159.6
9.9
6.5
11.0
10.2
10.1
7.0
7.2
70.5
230.1
Delta Cost
Intensive3
($)
-466.49
-29.24
-26.68
-10.58
-23.9
-46.3
-35.2
-59.1
-58.6
-48.5
-49.9
-347.8
-1680.2
Final Solution3
($)
-54.42
-19.60
-18.30
-10.58
-23.88
-46.27
-35.18
-59.15
-58.57
-48.53
-49.91
-347.84
-1250.1
Cost/Kilogram
Aluminum
Intensive3
($/kg)
-7.02
-8.14
-6.70
-5.13
-5.13
-1.86
-2.41
-7.12
-3.20
-5.80
-5.80
-6.93
-6.93
-4.93
-6.5
Final Solution3
($/kg)
-7.02
-2.30
-6.70
-2.61
-2.61
-1.86
-2.41
-7.12
-3.20
-5.80
-5.80
-6.93
-6.93
-4.93
-5.4
1 - "Aluminum Intensive" integration consisted of same Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Ev;
2 - "Final Solution" consisted of HSS Intensive Frame and Aluminum Intensive Body
3 - Negative cost represents a cost increase
jluation Group mass-reduction ideas as in the "Final Solution"
5.4 Alternative Materials
With further development, alternative materials have the potential for broader inclusion
in body, chassis, and powertrain component weight reduction. Some future options
identified include:
Magnesium (Mg): One of the positive attributes of Magnesium alloys is their high
strength to weight ratios. A similar test of replacing steel materials with magnesium
materials on the front module of the Silverado revealed approximately 57.3% weight
savings with 100% cost increase. The use of magnesium as a viable alternative will be a
consideration in future research. Another area in which magnesium has the potential to be
used is in powertrain components [53].
Carbon Fiber: The proposition of composite materials utilizing carbon fiber is one of the
emerging ideas in building lightweight vehicles. Currently, the use of fiber-composite
materials for supporting body parts has been limited to special series, as well as premium
and racing models[54]. Assuming a positive cost impact due to an improvement in
efficiency, continued research into using composite materials for auto body parts is
worthwhile.
53 Jurgen Leohold, Pathways for a Sustainable Automotive Future, Volkswagen Conference Proceedings, May
2009.
54 Gundolf Kopp, Strategies and methods for multi-material structure and concept developments, German
Aerospace Center (DLR), Volkswagen Conference Proceedings, May 2009.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 960
Long-Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastics (LFT): Another candidate for alternative
materials is long-fiber reinforced thermoplastics. Today, most LFT end-products are
produced for the automobile industry[55]. These molded parts include body panels, sound
shields, front-end assemblies, structural body parts, truck panels, housings, doors,
tailgates, and fender (wing) sections. LFT could be applied on the aforementioned parts
of the Silverado.
Aluminum Metal Matrix Composite (Al MMC): Utilizing high-strength ceramic
particles uniformly distributed throughout an aluminum alloy matrix creates a material
with one-third the density of cast iron but with comparable strength and wear resistance.
Components requiring stiff, lightweight alloys that need to accelerate and change
direction at high frequency such as pistons and wrist pins leverage the most benefit from
aluminum MMC. Increased tool wear makes machining this material difficult. Selective
reinforcement or the use of aluminum MMC only in high-stress areas of a part can
minimize cost. Continued development of this option would provide additional benefits
for lightweighting.
6. Conclusion, Recommendations and Acknowledgements
6.1 Conclusion and Recommendations
The primary project objective was to determine the minimum cost per kilogram for
various levels of vehicle mass reduction of a light-duty pickup truck, up to and possibly
beyond 20%. A maximum 10% increase in total direct manufacturing cost limit was
placed as a soft constraint in order to focus the study on more realistic ideas for near-term
adoption. The selection criteria for the truck chosen for evaluation specified a mainstream
vehicle in terms of design and manufacturing, with a substantial market share in the
North American light-duty truck market. Selecting a high-volume, mainstream vehicle
increased the probability that the ideas generated and their associated costs would be
applicable to other pickups trucks within the same market segment.
Key elements of the scope of work included the following:
• Select a mainstream pickup truck, available in the 2011 calendar year, with
significant market share in North America. Trucks for consideration should
include the Ford F150, Dodge Ram 1500, Chevrolet Silverado 1500, and Nissan
Titan.
55 Lars Fredrik Berg, Polymer technologies for innovative light weight vehicle structures, Volkswagen Conference
Proceedings, May 2009.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 961
• Select mass reduction ideas that use advanced materials, designs, manufacturing
and assembly processes which will likely be available in the 2020-2025
timeframe.
• All direct mass reduction of components (e.g., design and/or material alternatives)
as well as mass reduction of components via mass compounding (also referred to
as secondary mass savings) 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.
• Select mass reduction ideas that are production feasible and provide the best value
in terms of fixed and variable costs (i.e., maximum 10% vehicle direct
manufacturing cost increase).
• Maintain (or improve) the function and performance of the production stock
vehicle systems in terms of safety, fuel economy, vehicle utility/performance (e.g.,
towing, acceleration), NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness), durability,
ergonomics, aesthetics, manufacturability, and serviceability.
• Utilize CAE tools as appropriate when comparing baseline vehicle functionalities
to the light-weighted design, such as for safety, NVH, powertrain performance,
towing, durability, etc.
• Provide comprehensive incremental cost calculations for the mass-reduced vehicle
relative to the production stock vehicle, including both detailed direct
manufacturing costs (i.e., material, labor and manufacturing overhead) and
indirect costs (i.e., end-item scrap, selling, general, and administrative [SG&A],
profit and engineer, design, and testing [ED&T]).
• Develop incremental tooling cost calculations for the mass-reduced vehicle
relative to the production stock vehicle.
• The tools and processes to model direct manufacturing costs should be detailed
and representative of those used by OEMs and suppliers in the automotive
industry.
• Determine material utilization mix (e.g., steel, plastic, aluminum, magnesium) of
production stock vehicle with respect to mass-reduced vehicle.
The mass reduction and cost analysis team was successful in achieving the established
project objectives. Within the scope of this project, our team had the advantage of
focusing only on mass reduction, maintaining all other vehicle attributes. Conversely,
within the OEM scope of vehicle product development, mass-consciousness is just one of
many vehicle attributes to which engineers and designers must pay special attention
during a new development project. Furthermore, mass reduction is treated passively
historically; that is, product engineers must maintain status quo in terms of component
and assembly target weights unless there are specific vehicle weight concerns. However,
special attention has been given more recently to mass reduction. Examples of other
active full-vehicle mass reduction include the launch of the 2013 light-weight Cadillac
ATS and the recent launch of the 2015 Ford F150 aluminum intensive pickup truck.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 962
Many OEMs as well are actively pursuing light-weighing in traditionally heavier vehicle
systems, including body-in-white, suspension, brakes, and body interior.
The hope is this report provides a list of feasible and affordable mass reduction ideas for
several of the vehicle systems, facilitating the integration of additional lightweighting
initiatives by OEM and suppliers. The advantage of secondary mass-saving was also an
important point stressed in the analysis illustrating that through holistic vehicle mass
reduction efforts, additional vehicle mass reduction (-4%) can be achieved at no
additional cost at 20% vehicle mass reduction.
Many of the ideas presented are feasible now. The team believes that all ideas selected in
the final mass-reduced vehicle solution (i.e., 20.8% or 510.9 kg mass-reduced vehicle)
could be viable high production solutions in the 2020-2025 timeframe. There were also
many ideas presented yet not incorporated in the final solution that may develop into
more affordable mass reduction ideas by this timeframe.
For the Powertrain, Chassis, and Trim Evaluation Group, the team successfully generated
mass reduction concepts totaling 13.4% vehicle mass reduction. Key vehicle systems
contributing to the 13.4% included Suspension (4.3%), Brakes (1.9%), Engine (1.3%),
Transmission (1.6%), and Body System Group "B" - Body Interior (1.4%).
The team focused a great deal of its effort on ensuring the mass reduction ideas were
feasible from product, manufacturing, and timeframe standpoints. To make certain this
was the case, the mass reduction ideas selected for the analysis generally met one of the
following primary criteria:
• Existing in current high-volume automotive production
• Existing in current low-volume automotive production
• From non-conventional, non-production, mass-production automotive market
(e.g., racing, after-market)
• Currently under development by suppliers (e.g., material suppliers, Tier 1
suppliers) with a high potential for success
• Ideas employed in non-automotive industries
The team did its best to validate mass reduction concepts through the use of advance
CAE tools within the project funding and timing limits. The majority of this effort was
placed on safety-related systems such as the body and frame vehicle systems. For the
Powertrain, Chassis and Trim Evaluation Group, the team conducted basic engineering
assessments, primarily in the form of reverse engineering, to determine the feasible
amount of mass reduction. A combination of automotive supplier support, surrogate
benchmark data (i.e., purchased hardware and various benchmark databases), and
published literature facilitated the transfer of mass reduction materials, designs, and
manufacturing methods to the Chevrolet Silverado production stock components. Details
on where the mass reduction ideas came from, how they were applied, and what
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 963
engineering assessments were made in incorporating the ideas can be found in the various
vehicle systems throughout Section 4.
The Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost (NIDMC) impact of the Powertrain,
Chassis, and Trim Evaluation Group was an increase of approximately $824, resulting in
average cost per kg of $2.50.
For the Body and Frame Evaluation Group, the approach of creating and validating a
Silverado like baseline production model from which all mass reduction updates could be
validated was considered a robust approach by the team. The baseline CAE model was
validated using actual production vehicle test data which included both NVH tests and
cash worthiness tests (crash data from NHTSA). The following tests provided the team
with confidence that the CAE models were representative in performance to a production
such as the 1500 Silverado.
NVH Tests;
• Frame - Static Bending and Static Torsion
• Cabin - Static Bending and Static Torsion
• Body On Frame - Static Bending and Static Torsion
Crashworthiness Load Case Tests - Full Vehicle
• FMVSS 208 - 3 5 mph flat frontal crash (US NCAP)
• FMVSS 214 - 38.5 mph MDB side impact (US SINCAP)
• FMVSS 214-20 mph 5th Percentile pole side impact
Additional crash worthiness tests were added in order to support the assessment of the
baseline vehicle to the various mass-reduced iterations. These additional tests included:
• IIHS - 40 mph ODB frontal crash
• IIHS -31 mph MDB side impact
• FMVS S 3 01 - 5 0 mph MDB rear impact
• FMVS S 261 a - roof crush
• FMVS S 5 81 - bumper impact
Using various crash comparison measurements (e.g., vehicle pulse, time-to-zero velocity,
deformation modes, sheet-metal intrusion, etc.), the mass-reduced body and frame
structures were compared to the baseline model to ensure that crash performance integrity
was maintained with the implementation of the mass reduction concepts. The detailed
analysis conducted by EDAG supported that the body and frame mass reduction is a
viable means to reduce the overall vehicle weight without degrading performance and
safety. This is important since, in the case of the Chevrolet Silverado, the Body System
Group -A- and Frame System contributed 8.4% (207.1 kg) and 1.0% (23.7 kg)
respectively to the overall vehicle mass reduction.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 964
Apart from improving weight saving potential, the light weighting trade off process with
global performance and cost impact was investigated. The study was visualized by
plotting each of the characteristics on a spider chart as shown in Error! Reference source
ot found..
TARGET WEIGHT
(20% saving)
TARGET COST
BODY STFFNESS
0oMandloa
FRONT CRASH
SIDE CRASH
(all load casts)
REAR CRASH
(al load casts)
Figure 6.1-1: Lightweighting Trade-off Trend
(Source: FEV, Inc.)
In Figure 6.1-1: Lightweighting Trade-off Trend the blue line represents the light
weighting target values, the green line represents the achieved values (normalized) from
MDO (Multidisciplinary Design Optimization), and the dotted line represents the
baseline values for each of the characteristics. As discussed in this study, it is observed
that the vehicle weight reduction (20.8%) is exceeding the target (20%) but with higher
cost ($4.35 per kg versus $3.00 per kg target), this is shown in the chart with the green
line below the blue target value on target cost.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 965
It is also noted that the light weighted vehicle performance is shown to achieve above the
target levels for a number of areas on the chart in the roof, side and front loadcases. It
should be noted that, occupant safety variants were not directly investigated as part of full
vehicle scenarios. The occupant safety performance shown in the above chart is an
assumption based on normalized structural performance variants. The chart also reveals
that the rear impact performance analysis is below the expected target for both the
baseline and the light-weighted design.
The front crash pulse in the optimized design was found to be higher than the crash pulse
in the baseline vehicle. The difference can be remediated by improved restraint systems
and air bag deployment timing.
From the cost perspective, the Body System Group -A- had the largest overall cost
impact due to the high use of aluminum in the cabin, cargo box, and closure subsystems.
The Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost (NIDMC) increase was near $1,200 per
vehicle ($5.77 per kg). The Frame System made use of advanced HSS (high strength
steel), with two aluminum cross members, for a more conservative weight reduction, but
also at a much more conservative cost. The NIDMC increase was calculated to be $54, or
$2.30 per kg.
The Body System Group -A- and Frame System included some smaller items in addition
to the primary components evaluated by EDAG. Thus, there are some very minor
differences in recorded mass and costs in comparison to those included in Section 4.17:
Body and Frame Systems, which only includes the EDAG work.
Combining the results of all vehicle systems evaluated (i.e., results for both evaluation
groups), a total mass reduction of 560.9 kg was achieved at NIDMC increase of $2,074
per vehicle. This translates to an average cost per kilogram of $3.70. These costs are
considered mature, mass-production costs exclusive of any OEM indirect costs (e.g.,
corporate overhead, R&D, tooling, profit, etc.). When the tooling impact was considered
(incremental savings in tooling of $7.3M over the production stock/baseline Silverado),
the cost per kg decreased by approximately $0.01 per kg, resulting in an NIDMC increase
of $3.69 per kg.
Within the report the team addresses the concerns of evaluating components and
assemblies without the ability to consider all potential negative assembly, subsystem, and
system interactions associated with mass reduction. Potential changes may be required
for tuning out NVH issues, increasing stiffness, and/or making component adjustment for
vehicle dynamics. To protect for these countermeasures, the team added 50 kilograms of
mass, and $150 back into the analysis results. Thus, the final vehicle mass reduction
results, including allowance for counter measures, were 510.9kg at a cost of $2,224
/vehicle ($4.353 per kg and $4.346 per kg with tooling).
The FEV, Munro, and EDAG team view mass reduction as a viable and cost-competitive
methodology for improving fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 966
in addition to other potential vehicle technologies. This advanced preliminary
engineering assessment indicates mass reduction can be implemented on a light-duty
pickup truck without diminishing the function and performance of the vehicle (in this
case, a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado). As such, the team recommends the continued,
industry-wide engineering efforts and corresponding investments into mass reduction
research and development in an effort to meet the fuel economy and GHG emission
requirements of tomorrow.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 967
6.2 Acknowledgments
The EPA, in order to create a thorough, transparent, and robust study, invited various
government entities to participate and/or provide feedback during the study duration.
The EPA also acknowledges the following industries, partners, and reviewers for
contributions and input made within this report:
• American Chemistry Council
• Aluminum Association
• American Iron and Steel Institute
• International Magnesium Association and Suppliers
• American Foundry Society
• US CAR-US AMP High Integrity Magnesium Automotive Casting Project
• Tl Component Suppliers
• Air Resources Board (ARE)
• International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT)
• National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA)
• OEM Feedback
• A2Macl
• The various supplies referenced and credited throughout the report
Participating and partnering financially in this study with the EPA was the International
Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).
A white paper project review presentation and draft final report have been provided to the
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) for comments.
NHTSA was also periodically informed about the project progress during the EPA, DOE,
DOT and CARB working group meeting.
ERG was subcontracted by the EPA to conduct the peer review for this project. A special
thank you to the peer review team for conducting a thorough review of the report,
providing valuable recommendations on enhancing the overall analysis and final report.
The peer review team included:
• Sujit Das, MS, MBA Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• John Pillion, MS, Private Consultant (formerly Chrysler, LLC)
• Douglas A Richman, MBA, Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
• Srdjan Simunovic, PhD, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
• Mukul K. Verma, Ph.D, University of Alabama at Birmingham
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 968
7. Appendix
7.1 System Level Cost Model Analysis Templates (CMATs)
7.1.1 Vehicle System
Table 7.1-1: Vehicle System CMATs
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
i
8
r
•o
•-
M
I
NarneDeMnpeon
(1 Engine
D2 Tranimiuion
WBorft
Body System Group •-- 1 Body Sheelrnetal)
Body System Group -B- (Body Inlerior}
Body System Group -C- (Body Exterior Trim)
Body System Group -0 (Glazing & Body ttectiatroniw)
Htagwta
DiDrinine
•MM
17 Frame and Mountae
WEihauit
1»Fuel
11 Steering
11 Climate Control
11 Ho. Gao.1 t Wa™j Device
1 i El«etrsca£ Power S j 3?iv
1Sln-Vet»cle Entertainment
JTUMhH
1! EtetncjJ DfetrihitiM 5 BectrajJ Control
19 Eltct/orcc Features
SUBSYSTEM ROU-UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
IIWB", TOQI
HAaal
,-:
137.47
BUI
I.4MJ7
1149 OS
278 21
49 S3
1543
M.I7
1H.71
mm
4?) n
31.»
Cost
labor Buita) (CompontMi
: us: us-:
21.S6 W.72 1*5.16
69.2T 119.24 5W31
9«J3 274.74 tJIU»
WMi IW^i t.ZJ3.7B
M.T9 80 90 413.92
189 359 55.02
3.31 61 % 1M.59
83.72 24196 1 W*«
3136 104.45 Sft5«
J' 22 SiSO 9UI
•1 - 47.«
1.B7 4.33 37.12
131.07 3.13 1 19.16 1HK
«U)
31.SO 47.S4 !37i7
1791 3.94 24.23 41 «
177 I.M 1.77 503
;ni s.si s.st ^;:
S3S 1.1C 180 1931
5f« B.S7 -,.t3 »7^3
UM1
37S.S3 1.B31.1T 5JII.41
End ton
&»•»
:.SD
UH
5G&A
,:.
634 22.27
3.91
39.B2
«jp
Proll
.'
tl_tt
Covt
ED4T-RSD ' *mPcn*nt
.-:
5.14 t3.1\
4U1 18.11 . 101.12
in
Oil
030
(U7
471
41.38
140
4,7$
474
46.24
MA
129
23.95
37T
S.40
MS 87.52
0 38 1.2M.94
523 1 475.61
ore I 64,n
2.« 113.B7
51.70 MM 127.S3
3.13
26.45
25.M T.B5 62.SI
uj
14.76
15.11
OJ4
•
3.21
S.W 37.75
- 1
L»1 015 7.24
uw
7.69
S,M 2.37 17.J7
2.33
20.72
!J 11 12W 69.M
t.32
3.9S
3M 1.3(1 9.31
CM
0.41
0,34 O.C7 O.S7
fl.1C 1.66 IM
US 3.33
«,OG
0.41
OH 5.27 >,M
041
S.Q3
5.41 , 0.7! 14.57
25.44
236,94
230.80
3343 £62.61
•3<%
uSD ^SD
353.36
611.03
I.9S0.9I
475.51
u.m
11J.W
• : 1 .063.49
3M.03
Z77.I9
:
475 Oi
44.35
170.43
JM.32
S1.29
• ' t.K
39 .56
11.65
V120
5.754,02
S
Teeing (»1M»)
USD US:
JO.W3.S2
1\XKM
1X10001
USD
1U5I.H
1tK8
.
ilMJI
1.431JS
IU4UI
.
JOW2S
i :•;•: E:
511H
1.4W.57
SiJ.Sfl
ST.M1J9
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 969
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
E
'
1
2
3
5
6
,
i
1
1C
II
It
'
&
$
Name/Description
01 Engine
02 Transmission
03 Body
Body System Group -A- ( Body Shcctmctal)
Body Astern Group -LI (Bodv Intericr)
Body System Group C (Body Lxtcrior Trim)
Body System Group -D- (Glazing 8 Body Mechafronics)
04 Suspension
05 Drivclinc
06 Brakes
07 Frame and Mounting
09 Exhaust
10 Fuel
11 Steering
12 Climate Control
13 Info, Gage S Warning Device
14 Electrical Power Supply
1 Sin-Vehicle Entertainment
17 Lighting
18 Electrical Distribution & Electrical Control
19 Electronic Features
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-JP
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
Material
USD
19646
395.10
2,649.80
2,207.45
•„•!>:•-,
47 ffj
13 42
678.70
126.36
237.75
533.44
4445
121.50
201.50
1441
2.54
119.32
9.43
42.28
5,373.05
Labor
USD
50.66
61.15
127.00
50 71
1 hr
101.88
33.71
23.10
0.61
2.91
67.30
4.32
0.53
37.92
0.61
(4.33)
61531)
Burden
USD
108.32
125.37
400.22
21033
104.40
292.23
110.22
99.69
3.26
18.15
77.53
10.93
1.43
39.03
2.04
6.14
1,294.54
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
355.44
563.64
3.177.02
2488.70
1.072.82
275.28
363.54
533.44
48.31
142.57
346.32
29.67
4.51
196.27
12.08
44.09
7,184.99
Markup
End Item
Scrap
USD
4.62
6.17
2.86
•. In
',' U I
5.51
1.86
3.49
0.32
0.51
3.64
0.25
0.02
0.44
0.06
0.19
29.93
SGSA
USD
20.53
48.63
43.82
'-,'-,
52.03
23.65
22.91
4.43
7.02
33.53
2.77
0.39
8.24
0.56
3.64
272.22
Profit
USD
19.72
50.17
35.59
,''-. -,'
58.43
22.17
25.03
3.89
6.17
37.90
2.83
0.31
5.79
0.64
2.49
271.23
ED&T-R&D
USD
6.85
18.99
9.52
'-i ,-:!
28.53
7.07
11.33
1.09
2.25
22.37
1.04
0.06
1.55
0.32
0.35
111.30
Total Markup
Cost
(Component/
Assembly)
USD
51.72
123.S5
91.79
3.02
bb.bB
9.18
144.J7
54.74
62.E1
9.73
15.S4
97.46
6.E1
0.79
16.C2
1.S7
6.66
681.67
Total
Packaging
Cost
(Component'
Assembly)
USD
Net
Component/
Assembly Cost
Impact to OEM
USD
407.13
707.60
3.267.90
2 49 '.73
330.01
426.35
533.44
58.04
158.51
443.73
36.53
5.30
212.29
13.65
50.75
7,868.74
System
ED&T.'R&D
(xlOOO)
USD
Tooling (HODO)
USD
13,989.61
22,932.15
19,663.00
=M
9,970.45
409.10
19,210.04
1,005.70
2,620.50
376.10
243.62
90.13
90,510.38
Investment
(X1000)
USD
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 970
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
f
2
3
4
5
7
a
9
13
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
E
1
Name'Descnption
01 Engine
)2 Transmission
03 Body
Body System Group -A- ( Body Sheetmetal)
Body System Group -B- (Body Interior)
Body System Group -C- (Body Exterior Trim)
Body System Group -D- (Glazing 8 Body MKhatronic.il
04 Suspension
05 Driveline
06 Brakes
07 Frame and Mounting
09 Eihaust
10 Fuel
11 Steering
12 Climate Control
13 Info. Gage & Warning Device
14 Electrical Power Supply
15 In-Vehicle Entertainment
17 UgMng
13 Electrical Distribution & Electrical Control
1 9 Electronic Features
SUBSYSTEM ROLL-UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Manufacturing
Material
USD
|M57.i3)
M.058 6
(102.81)
164
20i
(70.53)
42.34
'C4 90
(H.42)
•; :>i
9.57
(K251
3.50
0.23
(96.12)
ID ;
w.is
(1.669.63)
Labor
USD
Baden
USD
Total
Manufacturing
Cost
Assembly)
LSD
|!8.70|| (7.591 195.29]
4.11
130,72)
!-- ':.
4.08
024
I1S.16I
IB.MI
(4,87|
IK
0.22
I2B.8QI
(O.t3|
UH
131.401
O.M
UH
(138.54)
16.13) 173.73]
(125.48
l'K4J
(23.50!
045
001
|J? 27
|5.76
(14.09
(t.31373]
(1,194.94)
(12223)
2-33
1.12
1 137.96)
30.23
1123.W)
1 54.42)
1,06 |11.19|
1.01 10.80
(23.99) |1Q9,05j
9.90 12.31
0.34 D.57
(32.51) [160.04]
0.76
(1.771
! :: 53.W
(263.38)
(1.973.58)
Markup
End tern
Scrap
USD
1.92
001
001
00'
(O.BO)
1.27
(J.2D)
."'£
0.03
(1.321
0.01
0.00
00:1
SG&A
js:
1.74
12.44)
003
(2.80)
020
010
!f.3-i
2.34
(6,1fi|
11.19)
0.56
(12.85)
1.09
0.0$
|C 73i
0.22 4,39
(3-49)
(35.27)
M
USD
EDST-RafJ
USD
(046), (1.71)
(8-85)
iiss
I
(0.47)
0 06 0 02
[1 51| (0.58)
016
Oil
(S.J5I
003
005
,135
248
078
|9.»7)| (4.73)
-
-
|O.U|| I0.!4|
Ul
0.1!
(14.77)1 (9.49)
0.96
0.03 0.00
|4.S7)| (1.Z01
(OWt 10.0S)
2.92
0.37
(40.43)
(22.87)
Total Markup
Cost
(Compoflentf
Assembly)
js;
1.49
(4.17
1,293.92
408.93
5S.42
100.88
(U.94
7.77
;M6
(2.49
1.1!
(3».4!
2M
0.09
(1169)
10.23
7.9C
(102.08)
^ N,t
M Assembly Cost
Assembryl '
USD USD
(33 EO
«.S7|
-
(1.194.79)
(127J3)
2.73
2.30
(I54.SO!
38.01
(1419!;
(54.4!:
(13.6J!
!1.9!
(I47.4S:
14.71
D.66
("171;
-
6144
(2.074.72)
System
ED&TIR&0
IdflH)
USD
Tooting («1000)
JSC
K.K4D1
Investmem
IX10M)
USD
|:.,K71:
8.704.17
(2.705
11,371.54
1,022.15
lt,IW.1l
1J91SS
(!54.00l|
143.00
1.185.B
233 3S
7251.31
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 971
7.1.2 Engine System
Table 7.1-2: Engine System CMATs
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
i
-
_
!
,
-
•
-
-
-
••
-
'•:
•j
'-
'-
'-
E
"5 5-
" '- .r?v5"?n:
- - — -. , . - - - / ;..-•.- -
|1C A
IttR
|12E
[13 U
IMC,
•_.- ;. j-iafTl
el Indookm Stdnvsieni
. -
brka'iM SuSMystem
: '... . .."^
1 ' -• - = =
USE,
., , - :.;.=_ , , - .; _,_;_.
|17B
iiiiflii i TiJiiu* ill
IMC.., -.y ^Tp-.. , „ . ,m..
|- _:-^.. , - ,,---.-.-•- ._ _ . . _
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
•M.
s«
MM«
U^
KM
«.
•
T
AssenWyl OHi
-
15J»
.
• -f
.
*S.2S
- ' 45.91
L^-
iviS
ra
System
EDATRiD
(1.1000)
Tootog
UlOOOt
I1SJX)
7.2S2-SS
1 J51 30
512.20
252.SC-
pttow)
' 1
25S1.15
3 ETi.65
65520_
-
H.KU2
r
"
J
-
-_
••
:
H
'•
-
:
•:
-
- =
•
- =
|
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
IbneiOescnption
01 En
tttEi
gine System
= -"•.• ^ "-. j : .•.-., , ; -- .-
""'' "* " •~1°T"lc"'
IHi'HCC !J4juyiMJD
-,=-S-71
(«6C
IRK
falfc 1 Hi •! -j^l l| • !•
-
tM Tn^ Drive S^Brsfcm
I' . -'- - -'^-~ L J-T-TT-
IIIF
[Ob
tou
:. .' : :_•.= . E'-
--- .-- - ".-.
tn^ioa Sdmwm
- - -
[eh
1KB
H7B
IBB
tacAH Ak Cbi^^ Sdi**a
. _
... .;_
^ •'.--:- - v - -. .-.
in*
i*ssonrSub^?-; ;-:-"--- . ^eraiar. 8fc|
SUBSYSTHI TOLUB*
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
_
466
£•_•"=-_• ;
u.
Ul
Buden
-
c.;i
-,
•SS!
-
5.19
1 ,
6,74
4J1
19X5
2j§0
M7
1.13
420
071
7&c f.JC C55 S 11
'
E-: '=-
Soap
Uar
SGtA
_:
PraB
-i:
Cost
K£££
Cu04 i.i-: ^: : 12 t_!i
,
- •
ut
047
O44
0.11
IJtS
•
-
;•** sre '••>'-' C'i2
154. fl« 0^4 •;:
-
- '
•
-
XM 3-23 1=72 t-$-i
76*2
19-SO
119.&4
ZS7
Oil
•- : " =: : f 7 isje
HMB
w
1W-J2
J55M
: ;i ; ^ ; '; :;j : :•.
lal '.35 3-45 C.70 10.11
::
sxo
659
__
•:<.02
uJit
B
jflfl
1J3
US
021
..«
2053
19.72
US
51.72
TOM
Net
C45SOTttTl
Ctw*n»aa.
oeu
5MT.
-
5J5
-
1" --1
22'
.
;5^5
-
2I5T
407.16
«™» ss "sr
-
§20J4
| W5»
: --- •
457 M
• -.*? : ;
52.M
Z391JB
i; y
: ;- E f :
1 133*5.61
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 972
E i I
if
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
UrwDtKitpiion
01 Engine System
i |OI Engine Harmst. Mourning, and Budum 5,jty.r«em
103 C
anl [><»• VulwYMnrii
104 C
4 lose
lute
is |07 V
unUi Balaoce SutxyiUun
IvMrtln Submixn
101 rhulnu Drlvn Subntwm
|10 A
11 |17 E
1. U LuifttalkMi SubtyiUHn
i |M Cooling !u>b«y*t»tn
II IS In
lucllon All Chaiflinn Sulnyffnn
'-. • •;, ••. • . , i .• . , ...
:• 1'B(MllM*Siih*nttm
IB [TBA
j|lna IUnaBBHMt.il. EivglnB Elwnon>c. EttiUka Subtrmm
SUBSYSTEHBOLLUP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
WWMMf
._,
o.n
(>*,/
M.
V 1 -
• . i
1«_
•
^
i4',
1. •!•
0.1J ! .;i "I
• 1 , '1
'
Scrap
lUlKup
m
aoo DOI
;. ~
" -.1 ft.M
0 ?* . . i i
ri.iHi rjOft
^ ,„
™
Oft*
O.OJ
il.lt
JM
DM
E04T
laWMiftup
LU5l
IcompofiBFii.1
D.D1 0 11
IV'-.1' fi 1?
' :
..
!
OJi.
<' *
lottl
.| in
Nel
Component
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 973
7.1.3 Transmission System
Table 7.1-3: Transmission System CMATs
•
.
•
.1
'
1 -
* !
02 Trs
tote
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
nsmission
-.--MI i- - on f. i KHU
IOIG.
Ittt
IW Train SutevMBtn
II- ! = "! 1. M ' . -!' '
1 ,
|HE
KBfcal CoMialB Safaqfacn
1 3 .
[ttttoc.S,**— "
HIE
I1JT
IZfD
, " .- • V. -. . ' >.,!.,•
wa> OIHIBBI! Ennui Coomb '*mi**iu
SUBSYSTLMROLLUP
e i
i s
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
02 Transmission
(Wjb
ft_j . — £3-;.
•
MdCfak*W^,
1
'
I'M LtocMcBl CoMoto b*3MH
|B t--»...0 UKh^nm W.^^.
lilt
MIT
Ktrfc MOM a Canm* 5ul»i tmm
iiu(ju Cm 'iilinaaiii
^TSTf-ROU*
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
MmMMg
MM,
-'=-
•
«.
-,
(Ccmpownl
.12 j^ M.H
42.6]
1I1.U2
«ii 1 141
W.5I
BUI
MM
4f T
BUT
119 J4
MM
yn»
Sow
SG4A
M
RiD
-
IdOl UoTUp
A*MmWr)
0 36 i SO 40B U3 ! 10D4
D.7S
«.»
SJ1
5M
3« ii/.r
*OI 1 150
124
13-W
1M
1982
41 J1
-
.
S.1}
]!-, f'H
101 12
^S?1
O€M
IJ4J9
1 J 1
,.
™~- s; 7;sr
- 1 1UMK
i Ml
1.910 |
, L — 1
LSM
»«
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
77?
• •
~~
.
B-*.
ToM
CMI
'
1 1 1
nut 1 an
44M
«,,s mw v,lu
Sow
U^
9GAA
PM
EMT
ftKt
•5=r
1
1 '
. i — ] .
WJ
I7M
gfi
«ti «» »» »BW m-
CM
KMVMM
MM
J •».
- ! /V*M
«><.
fDtiMD (T,^S^ "iTtee^"
' '
M*1 1
.-,«-,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 974
•»1
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
—
02 Transmission
leit
lojc.
,i- Tiain Siitnyt^m
J W*
III L
l«0
i ETI
'. |M£
unal 1 lutili ^.iilHfilnln
uncli Clutiih Sulji^ypm
I'HI.L^ .»ul i,l>! . '.nl^vMnm
Bchanica! ijmNolB Subiyitpin
•ctrlcal ConlfOli Siibivnvm
'< (w Parking MKhontan Sulnrwein
i« Gts
11 me
ii nn
ii In D
metric Uotoi ft Contrail Siibtvilnm
SUBSYSTEM ROUW
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
Uinufsciwing
nwM
UJf
1,1 ••'
.
tvt
mn
LWOT
S,J9
0 ?1
4.11
—
T^
CHI
l.M ;J1i
o.ra
n . 'i
09
|«.1))| |f3./J
M«Up
End Item
0.11
ii .
OM
R-lfl
SGSA
Ml
-
441
(8,11)
™
144
,?M|
MO
latilMitkup
IJ.'jfi ' •! •!
(Bill
i- .
I/ 5*1
0«
(l«
Mi , .
r ' •
1
O.M. -V.
«,W| PM)|
Co»l
,1 ,,|.,1, .I..-I!
IMI
HIM mpKi la
CCM
^(. 'ji
i -i
, i
.••• t '-
:::
<«-«)
EMT.RtO
U1WHH
S3
.'• -i
«.»n
IKIOW)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 975
7.1.4 Body System -A-
Table 7.1-4: Body System -A- CMATs
J
1 M
SYSTEM i, SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
_»*».
03 Body System A
lit Bixh StltKtan SulMntom
|Mt
un, f >ld ^utnvfMn
IHIN-T... ..^j,...,
[HI
n
If
> li
two,.
14
n
SUBSVSttU MXL UP
I & £
i
SYSTEM S SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
,™»
03 Body System A
ID) Baft SttiMan SafewMm
[Ml
o^LE SutHp)'""
l |19B
i »P
[«
. EZ
unpan SutnyMem
cky£JJo.
ID
•o II
SuaSVSTFHftOU4IP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
U«/jAlnnB
M.
41tU
roor
L-
•»
M
COM
MJI| H4(l HM4
MM
Mil «ui «;»
1
..1«,0.
1
1
»»
10* » i.W) /t.
•«
sou
ft.
1
• « 1-4B 1fl| Ul
COM
:
. i
0.1 1« .» BM
Ui
".rSr
'dsT
•. . i-
.1 ;-
m.M
1 ,"-! It
JS
i Hi 0001
ixtwoi
• 1
- 1
- I
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
•.anufadur^
^
out
8W_
H.3 'I1
J31 ....
?.707.4S
u.
MJf
133. /I
TOW
C.i
M
. i-,i
,,.™,,,
•S"
=,
IIM
"^sr
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 976
7.1.5 Body System -B-
Table 7.1-5: Body System -B- CMATs
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1
\
:
4
.
i
| j
03 Body Group B
1 23C22
IN' '. "iri.| ni'l •(...' i . n'l i |(IAI
|in '.. , '..,: ,• 1.-. li
|10 Sealing Subaltern
tl InHtunmii Paml and Cornel* Subwten
|?9 Overhead Module; (HA|
30 Carm-t Module* [NA]
|t1 fnrkann but Uodulei INAI
i-t Flixji nml luivilnl riniKjtn Minlul"! [NA>
SUBSYSTEM ROti UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
-7
•
j
-1
-
_
5 I
03 Body Group B
i 1
H*T..*..Ti *.!«..
! . J
[.•' ... k, ' " ..'. .- .>..'.
19 OwqtHod Uockiln |NA!
s«Bsr srey ROU-UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
10
I I
I 1
03 Body Group 8
Itt ^WhW SriMVHHB
1: liniiun.riii tM», I .i-. • „ i , ..
/04Kru|iai>l UcUlairtlng Drvlini
SllHSVSliHHCKl UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Manufacturing
..
i'i
l
1410
lAOJ
?»a
u.
Gulden
loui
rEb1
?MS i )« 11 iir n
UJA IBH'i 11. ,111
4M 10 J1 /ii/f
H.79
SU '.(0
41J.S2
SCTW
Uotup
3G4A
n'i 11ns
I- 11. .1 JWI
Oi1^ 4-BS
. |
IM
jo a
Proirt
11 41
1MI
3.M
1 4(1
23.95
R4D
.i-,.,
I5=ri
1 r.n / 1 ai
I.M 13,0!
0.71 B.fl]
5.H 61.58
.'.-, i.iyi
Met
I' i V
1*9.03
SMB
475.51
rc
sa
10.4W
4.0M
MM
1X1000)
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
Uantfxumg
M
-
featel
ToM
•2=?
i'.. 4'- •; ;j J-- • ;•
, , »
HIM M71
IM.48
"5ST
*««,
. :i-
-
PR*
s
uu
Cm
"— «
.-••-. •:• . 1 '1 1 ' i
• J5 KM | » « 0.^4 1 ' - '
~ •
. |
1 1 1
MM
. :-. • •
3H,
1
-~i .1
' '
(07.74
iitem
(nooo)
•jsr
i, ••
i .
! !
».«!»
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
H«*n>
1 i!L
., 1. 1.
•
•MM,
„
f..'-
• ,
U**a4*aiMmo
COM
1
1 , • ' . .I'll - - 1 -
oil gj
- j
4.M
M
HM.
904*
f'
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 977
7.1.6 Body System -C-
Table 7.1-6: Body System -C- CMATs
I
:
•
-
-•
j
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
i
&
I
03 Body System C
,
. , > : ,.i I..-.H Ft, , VI —
1' "" f " " •
:,':
*
B
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
-
i
!
i
•
j
!
i
•1
it
03
| «^
Body System C
H f iinr im 1 rim • Of nanwMMkm
w H.OI vtmi Union
G FraM (ml ModulM
174 HMV tndUodujM
I
Iw
117
«
'i
to
•Emm our
i
.
•
•
i
;
03
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
|
1 MM*.
Body System C
t» RBBI View Union
M HWII Llrf Mdhjtet
M Re*i End Modutei
»
g
i
SUBSYSItwaoLlUP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
MM U«r
«.
ic.r!rb
«»J «oj awj «»
'•i- M4-1 ... 'tr 11 i.
»4 J »I
-
-
-
|
|
r< 5:
Ui
1.59
55 D2
m
Soap
3G4A
PraN
RtO
'J^j iJsL
(tomptmenl
•J', I ! ."j l.'.'i '1 LM
0.3C
ATS
3.77
076
S.5B
1- 1 . ,.. ., J
otw
,">L
^~
t 1
^L
MM
Srstw
KCBM
Toctag
•SST
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
M-
,**
LJOW
B™.
CD*,
V4f 0»D !Ct«
0,41 OM 1 1404
441 0.14 O.JS 1 411
,..• ,,
M*
8G4*
we
M
^'
'.•,'.',, I'M
OW PJW
•Ml 141
DH
•-1* ?4^
ooi o.4i 1 on onr «e>
MI
.„,,::;,
M t*
5U
1 Illi
A,
a
{X10DOI
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
!! I..., ,|
UHT
—
w
Coct
utMMnn
D» , QDI 0.11 ' (Ud
DJS
OD5 0.11 1143
01;
0^3 0.0$ i ft.»
US
£ndlt*m
to*
ODD
cm
SGI*
!
PlOW
R4D
•
TOW MAftilp
QM
5*
1
e.o:
0.01
1 DM
!•!'
ow
law
AMttBMy}
M
«M
DM)
s
s
"SS"
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 978
7.1.7 Body System -D-
Table 7.1-7: Body System -D- CMATs
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
'
1
'
'••••""-'
03 Body System D
1 1 <.i*u (GfetJnol, FIMM Md Itoclnnanu
IlllUiriUi.taaijUiEfcMT ••«•*-
12* HYiMI «nd Cowl Wadukrt (HA)
U
10
1*
g
SUBSYSTEM ROUW
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
:
:
•
•
1 j ^_
03 Body System 0
111 Gl«* (Gi.7in.il. f «m« «. I iltwit* Umlulvi MAI
10
IP
suasrsntiftou UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
U^^v,,
_| ^
_
lOU*
- -
««. 3» |1 Ml M»
1
Suae
MM
9CAA
UQ
COM
(.4* 4«, SJ3 J« ./«
1
1
1 1 . 1
. |
- | - 1
,V »| ,!),
CaretMirt C
•H
'
| 111*
s
ss
mioooi
- [ -
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
HMMnn,
Uj1*n»
It M
M
M
1 , •
U 11
loUl
COM
i— i •
':;:;
,,
9UA
PM
ED*T
' 4_
'.trr
Q.4& 4.41 &1J 2M 1JJU
OH
1 1 1 1
zct ixn
AMUHM* ' ** MM*
|
- 1 MO
• 1
1
1
1 1
111.M
tIM 111*1)
»1DOO>
(.IBM!
(X1000I
- 1
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
,.,,
M
«.
0,01
UMUlMtUllH
MwmHyl
'
U
M.
trwutrn
Saw
-.
«.
PICA
E
!
1
1
•fl
0.10
8.11
MO
B;
- 1
m
ON
IMM
r=;'
a,
Ul
SfltHtl
EHHH
S
.
7ST
•
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 979
7.1.8 Suspension System
Table 7.1-8: Suspension System CMATs
•
1
J
t
4
i
-
-'
j
s
-
•
•
•
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
.-
MwTwCcicnplan
" 1
04 Suspension System
| TOM .uy*n*>™.- H/A
M.BSTMmfl,K.l(f.
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
= ;
04 Suspension Syslem
•
U Wh«elt >nd Tiiei Subtr*e<"
•-• Milf-.- : r. ..-,,( L. ,.;n-.j •.,.!--,, ,.«..-,, ,-f.T. (!.'„,
~ N A
1 n HI*
1 M HI*
SUBSYSItU DOLL UP
I.U1*M3l
1 *!*•
171. J*
/' W
«.ir
IUMn«
tltlt
—
1*1
Manura*m,
M.
J «£.
«J5
Ml
ma
n , ,
UMOf
.
•4-.
101 M
•«—»-»;
IM
111 HI
M
| **M_
« 16
MI.K
.
rtt-
1-1 „
;
i»j)
1
B/
IDUI
irnrnpowtnl
11 i f
nu>
T«W
CM*
,..,.>,,
JCREMEf
toM
0»4
o«*
SETE(
lsr
in
C 73
77,
Sow
U4
7^
•.-,1
TALC(
Enalcm
:HNOL
M,
M
R.U
M.24
'
9GAA
»W
i>«
5STTC
SC4A
am
DGYG
M.
M
ion
>i.n
M
M-lfe
UPGR
iue
PIC*
HERAL
H*D
4J*
M .W
EMT.
FUC
trjr
».S1
^DETC
ED4T-
fOO
•
PAR TIN
I .:.,!' Irl-H
|C«n(KiB»nIi
•"'"!•
Wf W
KMHMta.
COM
,«-,
NEWTE
ToWUvfew
COB
AmnitHl
m«,
EORMAT
i «i*
",=:;
COM
ICl IILIIII'
:HNOLO
r«
/•'::'
ION:
u*i
OEM
fpup-.
1MI«
IM
r^l^ld
GY PACK
M
ocu
- J
,i«»
iHriun
tilOOIJ)
lOttKU
UtlMl
AGE
^'oIoV
(•1DOO)
uuro
B.SWVZ
MM
ifM)
tnj«
~.-
noa
m
,xim,
(MOW)
-
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 980
7.1.9 Driveline System
Table 7.1-9: Driveline System CMATs
SYSTEM « SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
I
•
•
-
'
E |
05 Driveline
In Drii .Trtirt 'ubm«tia
[•ZttoOn^HBT..!!^^!-.-!-.
; '-• ••.... ,' --I/.,'.- <,,-_-.
I 1 • . • i -• . ' ' ,1-1 -..i •,".
l«
w
I*
w
SUB SYSTEM ROLL OP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
???
< -•• ; 10M
^
«M
_
.-03
L-ii-
—
S
— »JL.
Cool
"—""
1r" 11
— ^
i1 •: 1; . 1 ;^ '1
- 1
fO/0
1ZJS !:'J LI
305.52
1 =;
«*,
t.12 U*
LH,
"
M
RM5
issz
1M M9 JW
iil.
—
1 .I.'
!
1 1:
KM
:s;5 rx szsi
A»oiMD ' OUI
- 1 MM
... ..
- \
- !
. 1
1*5.03
•MBBfB
HWOOI
- 1
',' •
,.«i-a]
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
-
?
j
g
T
-.
{( ^^
05 Driveline
]U HM< IHiv* Houwl A.k ^ulHTMmn
*"ll'^'a" •^-J"L 1
|H front Drtv* H«M Sluto SulMVMeni
»*
m
m
m
DO
SUBSYSTEM (Kill UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
_,
•
.
-
•
•
| | ™.
05 Driveline
Kl FMM Drtw Homd Aid. StrfmMn
|M rn>« d»ve Hafl SluAi Subwvwn
l»
W
IW
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
777
_.
U-
2J li
tVM
tawn
-
COM
BH
• ' • '
-
-
-
«u| »n
nut
Hilt
^r
U*
8CIA
iiS
MB
R»D
,.,.,
*~~"
10}
1314
17 «
ti
. . . .
• •/ tOI AM OJ* iVJ
1J>| an | B.II
T*| MM
TOM) MM
3. ««]
/4i«
i
i
| no 01
^ ^ — -
i . .
• 1
- 1
| «M.|
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
MM
••= - .
UM
=
| TOM
COM
* 1 1 1 "Mil
* — ^~~~ ^*i
u-.' • t'n
OM (* M) [i «
30.13
Btftai
±_^
«~j
^^^|
-
• .•
I'd Hill CM • V
1
ta
;• f-t
7«
0 '1 ,' '/
rifirn r »• un
[fntnppxiw fnii npia u
'
• •
i
- 1 MM
t^o ^a; "££T
iMJS
i
,.„,,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 981
7.1.10 Brakes System
Table 7.1-10: Brakes System CMATs
•
-
1
•
•
.
06
:
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Brake System
01
* • a
"•'
N
9
«/A
Flo.. MMOam .nd Snl.kl Sl.lgp.lo
111 01 riilMlltnilon •!!! "III! Ill 'Idanoi !•
*ortioo Brofco and Imi'lBO 7otloM*m
« MM
10
i«ke Coomb SuiMyttMi INJA)
SUBSYSTEM ROU. UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
???
.Mm,
.-,
u»
Bu>0«i
MM
AsMfnWm
41.M 1 4.M
18. M | 118
2ur
nM
s.n
I2.M 1« U7
1824
' 1 1
13286
It 21
I5.W
239.61
H..I*
Sow
U
0.17
SGi*
Pratt
4J»
4SJ
J.t]
Oil
1M
15S
1 ,
1.29
U /i IV"
ED*T
RiL
lolal Uaihap
AmtlkWy)
2.11
o.fi
tt-SS
— ft».
Ui
tU^
S.62
IMi
' ~
jr./s
IConwonmt
AumiUyl
H
AlMdlMf
CoMtmoKlta
:•- t,
J^ /t
2nj«o
H19WI
Too-Wfl
i.Uii*
1X1000)
10.M5.W
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION;
06 Brake System
I1*P| 14*1 <<*
SUBSVSIEUWMLU
KM 11.11
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
•:
2
3
4
'
-
.
10
n
.^.^
06 Brake System
1 01
182
•i ;.
1 W
104
cram RaMffDiMB Md SM*U !i«liif...ii»
,,,-.|. H..- i ' I • • . .:
105
1 W
\ M
II • . • . , , . -..Til
&rt. Actu.vl.ao hibtTBootti
', .•. , -ir.4.. -mi-.,-', .n fi..i M,.:<.i.,',.;
'( 'A
| .1 it- , ., ,', .
1 IB iii n in in Oiodn jottiMMniiHirni
SUBSYSTEM RCH.I UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
lUTo-tMunng _ Taw
HIM
;
»f4.
,,o*,;
1*
"•"•j^B
- t - 1
AssemNyl
:
. .
!,-«
,.,.,
„.»
1
1
,-,3, UV,,,
.', = --, r-1 i,
•.• ,,,-,. n
OEM
-
TO,4
st
ss
v^
-
(xi wot
.,»,,.,
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 982
7.1.11 Frame and Mounting System
Table 7.1-11: Frame and Mounting System CMATs
;•
••
•
•
ll
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
—
07 Frame and Mounting System
ta
la
fw
IK
IB
IK
n>
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
t
1
SYSTEM S SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
,-<_
07 Frame and Mounting System
'"r"**^"*'-=£
B
B
r«
[47
H«
B
«««„«„„,»
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
mun~, ,«,
M
AmmMr)
•, i
i''ji!.' t; •:•;
•MB
- 1
4190!
Uvnm
"ST
-
Mt
Pro*
. MI
•
MB
(CORIPCMM
1
*
-
- 1
•
CoM JHHmMi
AmmMUt OEM
-
•
.n.n
BOMB
SZ "SST
i
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
«— .^
•
^
BMMI
M
•dSr
_WW4j 1 1 WM
»,*
M.
BHM]
•
EDtl
IM.U.fM.1
•CilHI|ly.l«-
1
i i
1
IM
COM
•M
: .,. ,-i, 1 :
\ m*4
-,M«
•nmB
t.ioom
;n Tsr
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
i
-
•
'
•
i.
i!
HMMflMOHlMI
07 Frame and Mounting System
Imr
I-/
IOJ
IM
105
lot
lo;
n
115
II*
SUBSYSTEM HCK.L UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
1.:,,,,,-...
«.
u»
M
COM
iCMniximM
I
- !
•M
End Him
tail
sou
Pra*
ED»T-
TnMil.t«i.iup
Patugug
, .-i
OEU
!*.«
nmm
^
7TST
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 983
7.1.12 Exhaust System
Table 7.1-12: Exhaust System CMATs
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 H
09 Ex
IK
_»_«.
iaust System
E22SS
U
J IM
IK
I96
IB
1 1"
- »
ho
SUBSYSTEM ROLL 4JP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
WMMMH
MMH
«.
«.
UmfocluT-m
(CocneoMM
11.11
1.67 4J7
37.1J
End **m
,.-'.-
'jSi .ll>L
i
Pratt
E«r-
na
Cosi
AiMfflM-)
ijJJ
X24
Ml
us [ r 24
lot*
MM
GUI
«4J5
nioeoi
WIOOOI
11 .. -n: . i !
IX10MI
I||
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
•-,-- ,.
09 Exhaust System
l«
3 IB
' IM
(«
NC
* t»
l«
l»
»
SUBSYSTEM HOI Htt>
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1 i I
,^_
09 Exhaust System
ttt
IDJ
lot
l»
l«
foi
:- \m
109
1 10
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
«^-^«c
•^
«.
To«
COM
- .
- !
'
1 • 1
44JS 0.61
1
JJt 4*^1
Soap
•A,
BHA
wo*
RAD
Co«
. |
B-Xt
141 IB
,«
•n
TcW
-.•-.n :
COM
MM
1
(
- 1
1
!
•M
H»TS«I
Ul
SI
(IJ-fS
BMMU
ToaMHj
KIOMI
•ssr
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 984
7.1.13 Fuel System
Table 7.1-13: Fuel System CMATs
1 1
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
|
10 Fu
... - -
9! System
•
3
4
s
6
u/l
05
|
H
el V«PCH UinajgmetK ~itmi«*mi
»
l'
M
M
SUBSYSTEM ROLL -IIP
I]
10
i
i
•
i
'
>
•
'
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
^«w
Fuel System
M F
—
^
»
^•'1
H
M
Ml [*nl .lin I i-lfl ^uhlfVEl"
rtlV^pm uiiji»nil Tutiu«m
"«"«""«<»"«>
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
IUMWW
-
_!«./
•JO
ni«
^ „„
,„, :,",,„
...
' ^
Wi 1.W 1M
- I
I
-,r ,,,--,
KUI
M*
.•i ••-.'• j
HIM
0*1
014
OJ7
OM 7 58
Ui
-
- '
1J7 17.07
:::;;
v:l;
1SJJ«j
irou
£=,
SB
i 1 iSSj
Ml
UN
•ssr
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
••M
M.
BlHWI
TM
CMI
n*.-' 1 j< !*IK ?• • .
U4J UtJ iwj Mt
• |
'"•» !« «-»' '">'
Sow
ttr
lit
SGIA
*i'
*»
-
B3*T-
t*i ;i»
TaWHMMD
C«H
1 "
:s •'.
— «*j M»J t«j «j n»
1
•
,
OS, 7.0, t« 2J*
DM
CM
MM
OEM
UH
1 n«
,«»
fWT.WD
Ml
•55-
fW
1 2U
,*.
,
1
.
•
4
•
I
'
I"
H
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
ttiom/OtKnfUon
10 Fuel System
leif
IMF
101
*i Vapa Ibn^MBBM SubiyMani
l«
lo;
lot
in
10
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
•uruM^
HHM
SS1
—
017
D.H D.04
i it • -•
.Dl'iy.) OBI
1
- 1
Ui
0,22
1 01 10 Wt
Eno (Ism
seap
Ul
sew
•••L
P-ciW
-,,,
DM)
005 on
ED1T-
•n, I'.-L.r
Cau
1..4
1 1 'I'-l
Ml
O.K
0.41
0.12
10
™S-
c~
11 ,
,1 n:,
11J2
EL*I*l*ti
(il 000)
TMMf
KIOOO)
JJ1
1JM
7TT
•--I
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 985
7.1.14 Steering System
Table 7.1-14: Steering System CMATs
>
-
•
.
-
I
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
I
1
11
Steering System
n SMMlM Oeai 4«b Kvucm
o; Power Swarms Pump
S^rta, ituipn^
«* Wf
»
"
10
SUBSrsTFU (KM I up
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
U^H^C 1M-
WhM
MOO
151 .M
M.
auratn
M.H,
- 1
imn
IGOO
MJO
- 1
1
1
«.M 3HW
...
t.w
..„
'.-
•
Pratt
EDCt-
•, fi MH...I
CMI
I1J5
H.M
7.7S
oi/ i sr i w o.H
: •
. i
1
UB
• |
x n
n,u
««
Ml
e^=rco"sr"
MM
rn.ru
s
HIOOOl (KtOODt
75««
-
•
.
'•
]
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
11 Steering System
C1 SlcerirKj C«w Sub_Sj«£m
;•; Powei Mealing Pump
|
10
SU65YSTFMROIL4IP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
-:
•
•
5
•
1
11
"
Steering System
H SMftM GM MtSHMB
K Poww S«Mf MO Pump
| DWI "^ ^'F'Tf
ifi
M
W
•
n
SUBSYSTEM MIL W
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
VmtmMnii
•MM
UMr
—
'.-si: USD
1B1 K' ij '? ** i!
1
TflM
Cow
3M!f-'
— «2L 5J*^ — 11L.
.•-•• -
tap
Uar
SCM
.
-
j ,-.;.
EDIT-
MD
5
Con
tSL
ut
^M
.: .
:'.: -...
J*L
UN
3J5£
37 JO
3231 \ 97 M
TOM
ta*^
BM
MM
Of 11
s
«2.i;
. n*L
44371
1 0*10*0
tlMM) IXIMOI
1
- 1
- 1 -
- 1
.
| uaa|
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
I-Z-^^^^!^^
•MM
u.
_
COM
,'T'. :!1 - i -- '- -- ' -' .
»«• , >««
IM-2W |2U
i m-W im«
BHMn
M
™
™* |raM|MM
M
ED»T-
c«
"— "
'
0 !' 1 6F 1 VJ n^-i 1 • •
1 1 1 «*J
tt-JZ
nun
n«n
o.».
loUl MM
PKU««g . CM^MMt
CMI MMnM
KonpMW jCaanpKlHi
- 1 ,.!' .i
4C'S-)
1 «»
EMTMO
(Il*Mt (KtNM
1
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 986
7.1.15 Climate Control System
Table 7.1-15: Climate Control System CMATs
SYSTEM i SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
1
6
•
8
i i
* 1
12 Climate Control
~a T -utapta
| g a b£
. ! ,.-.... . -,,..-.,.,:-„
]«h
£
IN
|n
ho
SUBSYSTEM ROLl -UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
!
?
:
•
7
-
9
[
:
-'
4
t
•
^
•
i •
i|
12 Climate Control
[01 H. UMuthBt i Prf/ Vcii«mM -U^mm
|fl (UfctBifrtaii i Ak CnnrtMniUna Subwwai
W4 Caibab SBbxtvn
US
(B
)M
suensiEMKiuKP
SYSTEM S SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
;
12 Climate Control
IB? It p" n^Rpii!ii- _j_j Sut»r*t*ni
JW Conlrolt SuMyum
ll»
1%
187
|M
l»
110
SUB SYSTEM ROLL UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
^^irg
•—
«.
M
-
17JM JJW »J3 «.*
Sow
«.
«
EDIT-
RAD
:•;,!•,•* a,
-
i !_
DJJ J.K 3..J
ui| in
COM
AswmtMy
-'• . •
BMJi
sa
•sr
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
•_ .-•:-. - ;
Ujttnjj
«.
— !i«J tiL
Bunttn
BM
.. .-.-, ; «
...4,
i*
1MB
».C7
Soar
!':-
SGI*
.
not
E. •--
RIO
Coct
•Jl
in
IJS
,.(U 63,
ToW
"—"
e^r
• i
*.»
SfSMI
fD*TRtO
s
(xioon
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
,. , . ,
•MM
_
Bu«9*n
M
Cosl
,„
- i
.
rt« 9 JO
1231
•
•JJi
SCI*
„*
PMI
I.-.!
ToUltMtkop
COM
H i if i W
o.»
OM
2.40
loui
S
,,M
(Ml 000)
UtOOfl)
(xtown
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 987
7.1.16 Info, Gage, and Warning System
Table 7.1-16: Info, Gage, and Warning System CMATs
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
.
j
j
•
1 1
12 Clir
|«He
|OJR»
.,.,:.,-;
riate Control
a — 1 1
• •
|MCo
•mbfMbwWm
1 04
5
H
l«
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
.!_«»«.
.«,
,V)
!».
—
,™
"=£'
• ;
•-..
HM.
1 '•(
'•'•
EO4T-
K££Z
- I
:
- I
|
- I
'
|
ooe 1 w
D.9C
0.2C
LH
Tout
Picugng
OfH
-1
MM
£D*T«ftD
[110001
loung
"sr1
•.
-.
| 1
** 2
13 Inf
|«Dr
« T
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
__
3. Gage and Warning system Total
C «1
•Itir It-nni rftf-viMc]
IM
MS
W
lif
IN
in
l«
SUBSYSTEM ROIL UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
i
-
3
3
4
•
:
E
[|l
»™««wm
13 Info Gage and Warning system Total
IBT
^ ,_ — ... — -i^. — .j
Bflk *HIH (Elaclricl
IM
IM
ID/
IM
Sue SY SUM ftOLLUF
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
.....
~
ItWK
Burdtn
M
K ompaimt.
AiwmW,}
'
1 1 1
i . j
Ul
1
1
- 1
' [
Stnp
.IM,
u»n.
MM
M
6D4T
fliO
i
1 1
>J1 l.«
(.0*1
*>WBW"
'
"'"
COM
coil MVKI 10
OEM
1 '
u
1 :m •>•.!'
UtOOO)
,„,
•sr
•
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
U^,»,,,B
_
£»*.
0.17
u
,«K
o»
M
j — WL
03?
leal
COM
1 '-*-
!
Enal*m
Stflp
,**»,
•HA
«
EDCT-
1 1 1
, in. . . -
r •. I-VM.,
1 i-
D.O1
- ! -
Ml
•=r
COMtnplCIU
1 i.
017
,,,
•S
s
HI JO
- 1
,0^
i -=|...T "
O1CMWI
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 988
7.1.17 Electrical Power Supply System
Table 7.1-17: Electrical Power Supply System CMATs
I 1 1
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
.u,,c,,,»_.
14 Electrical Power Suppry
I ^ ' *
IB
In
I 101
IK
5 IE
10!
1 Hi
W
11 IU
SUBSYSTEM ROUJJP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
111
• -
n»
r
BLltdM
HS11"*
"— "
EM Mm
KM
SGA.
Ptan
EDCT-
MO
Cow
1.W 1J3
..« UJ
Can
— »
'A^WV*
OU
I9JC
,-T
(HtW)
j 14»U
1X10001
i [ f
' » 1
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
„«
14 Electrical Power Suppry
|OT Handy' ^
im
IM
: Iw
[.:•,
i M
7 ko
a !•
[M
•o In
SUBSYSTEM ftOUW
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
lUnuM^g
•MM
1t9J?
UM
.
BuTOtfi
T.U,
COM
(Component1
57.92
3UB
19&.27
Uanup
MM
SGI*
Prom
1
EMT-
MP
'
COS!
1 —
U,
17* 5,79
- 1
14S
1G.O?
COM
ttel
OCH
=5=1
' '
• i
• t
m^
•MM
BUHU
U1DMI
T«*WI
mieooi
nvemwn
IK10M1
!
- 1
«,«
:
14 Ele
:
R
i
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
™
ctrical Power Supply
^3 — gQMM
|04
^
8
ID
•'
M
1
10
SUBSYSTtMHOimP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
•HMMM
1
LJBW
Buram
law
CHI
(31JOJ (31.411
I1W.M
Saip
««*
astM
Pro*
ED«I-
HD
: .Mi i1.' -'.-I'
Coil
(CrnnpeoMl
IO.JSJ (6.5;
[I.W
(IM)
(i?.69|
Call
ilompo-Ml
pa.
EHT1UD
{11 DM)
HlOOfl)
1.115ft*
(X10DO)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 989
7.1.18 Lighting System
Table 7.1-18: Lighting System CMATs
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
^
E
'
II —
17 Lighting System
ItlFreittVtfni
- • .• . j
10
10
14
10
SUB SYSTEM ROLL OP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
!
]
J
1
:
:..
9
'i,
Name'Desenpuan
17 Lighting System
I'll [ fill • 'Mil'. ill|
|OJ Inledor Lighting
|03 ReerLfflhlino
|.'- » i.'. = :....- i.r.
105 Ughlbia Switch^
Id
lo
l'i
10
SUBSYSTEM ROLL UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
MM t—
1
Sursw
Coot
. | .
.1 .
!
. i .
GJC 1.15 1M
i :•
So*
«»
Pro*!
*%£
.:
1 .-j ESJ «_i
«« 0.48 ..» D.-7 til
dil
r H mi in id
««
•
i' i'.
£D»t«AD
ItlOCOl
I'lOMl
txieoo)
- 1
- 1
- 1 - i
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
HmMwtq
„„.,
:i i I
Laaoi
Hr,l
M.
2,04
M
^rb1
12.03
I1. • 1
Snap
0.0*
3O&A
"->',
AM
(UC
TOUI MAfKup
Cosi
(Componenll
O.M OJ2 IS'
0.64
OJ!
1.57
"S-
Assembly
1 1HM
|
13.SS
System
|>1DOO|
Too**
IKtOMt
Mvttvnmi
(H1000I
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
,
-
:
I
i I
j i
17 Lighting System
|07 InlM^H lioMltid
I n H*«i Lrghlfpig
IOS UohlbMi Swttchet
la
10
la
lo
IB
SLIBSYSIEMHOU UP
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
II******
«.
m.
BuiJrn
iMll
CM)
itompwwni
i !
o,orJ ».M «.n (vrr
«*«*
Enollem
SC4*
M
..-.
R40
C«l
"~*
-
.1
|0.08f| (0-IB
M
i . . , ,
Cost
• •- i
fnnipo«Bnt
oiu
EMT.NtO
I11WXII
58
IX10W1
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 990
7.1.19 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
Table 7.1-19: Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System CMATs
•
E *
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
MM*.
18 Electrical Dislribution and Electronic Control System
loin
w
h-likul Wiling ami Ciriurt F^H^IKK. SulHTUmi
im
[05
lo*
lit
g
(B
SUBSrSTFll«OU UP
i
.'
1
t
.
-
.
•1
•'
: •
*JI
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
M3Ri&lH>scnpttan
18 Electrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
(tie
l«
|OJ
IM
|»
loe
Ml
\n
SUBSYSTEM BOll UP
SYSTEM & SUBSYSTEM DESCRIPTION
"
.
•.
-
-i
•
i!
18 Ele
—
ctrical Distribution and Electronic Control System
—
I •'
l«
M
m
!*•
to
l»
SUBSTSItil HOLL UP
BASE TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
MMMMM
•••M
UM
_
1,tt
,:.'--,;
• 1
1
. 1
•M
Mtl
f"M
Ml
1
EDtT
•2ST
in 1 i*ir
i • i
- 1 . |
'.41
• I
- 1
n f/
14.57
CimfKiMTl
IM
AiMfflHy
Co«t Inv* 1 lo
ItJW
•SS"
moot)
M1W
1X1000]
COMPOUNDED TECHNOLOGY GENERAL PART INFORMATION:
• • < .
M,
--
use uso
- •
T«.
COM
a '* i
E.14
4409
End Mm
Sa»
i i,
•am
»
,
,,.,
EDST-
MO
COM
-
B-19
IH
1A»
US
'"
TOM
COM
- ;| n. : ' i
Sntem
C04IUD
Dam
mow
-
IX14MI
-
».U 1
,,,
INCREMENTAL COST TO UPGRADE TO NEW TECHNOLOGY PACKAGE
_
UM(
| !,«,
—
CM
«*— ,}
„., 5»,
""* I !«-•«*.
BMM
Saw
MM
M
CO*T-
fUO
Cmt
(
]
a
tJ»
MB
-
CM
*<**•**>
*.-«**,
om
-,
EMTM4)
S
TST
».
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 991
7.2 Body and Frame Supporting Data
7.2.1 Vehicle Scan Data - Disassembled Parts
Image 7.2-1: Front Rail Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
Image 7.2-2: Mid Rail Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 992
Image 7.2-3: Rear Rail Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
Image 7.2-4: Front Shock Tower Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 993
Image 7.2-5: Cross Members Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
Image 7.2-6: Cross Members Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 994
Image 7.2-7: Cabin Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
Image 7.2-8: Cargo Box Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 995
7.2.2 Scan Data from White Light Scanning
Figure 7.2-1: STL Data Samples of Frame Assembly
(Source: EDAG)
Image 7.2-9: Weld Data from Scanning Process
(Source: EDAG)
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 996
7.2.3 Material Models (LS-DYNA)
Steel Material Models
The structural steel materials used in the study are detailed in Table 7.2-1.
*MAT_PIECEWISE_LINEAR_PLASTICITY (MAT_24) is used to represent the
material with a table of stress strain curves at various strain rates (with VP=1 strain rate
option). No damage or failure models are implemented in the material models.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 997
Table 7.2-1: Table of Common Engineering Properties [561
Steel Density Poisson's
Grade (fmnr) ratio
Modulus of Lower u|timateTensi|e
(MPa) YS (MPa) StrenSth
Tot EL
(%)
Mild
140/270
Mild
BH21 0/340
Mild
BH260/370
DP 300/500
HSLA
350/450
DP 350/600
DP 500/800
DP
700/1000
CP
800/1000
MS
950/1200
CP
1050/1470
HF
1050/1500
7
7
7
7
7
850e-
09
850e-
09
850e-
09
850e-
09
850e-
09
7.850e-
09
7
7
7
7
7
7
850e-
09
850e-
09
850e-
09
850e-
09
850e-
09
850e-
09
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
o
o
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
x104
x104
x104
x104
x104
x104
x104
x104
x104
x104
x104
x104
140
210
260
300
350
350
500
700
800
950
1050
1050
270
340
370
500
450
600
800
1000
1000
1250
1470
1500
42-48
35-41
32-36
30-34
23-27
24-30
14-20
12-17
8-13
5-7
7-9
5-7
56 WorldAutoSteel, the automotive group of the World Steel Association; http://worldautosteel.org/
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 998
Mild 140/270
§ .00
-SOAce
-100/wc
0 200 0 JOQ
True Strain
MitdBH 210/340
0200 OSOO
True Strain
Mild BH 260/370
DP 300/500
0200 OHIO
True Strain
HSLA 350/450
- OOSAfi
-Ol/i*c
- Id/lee
-SM/M-C
- 1000/wt
- 100/M-C
oiow oiwo o;w»
True Strain
01000 01SOO
True Strain
DP 35 0/6 00
-0005/uc
-Ql/MC
- 10/«c
- 100/MC
-SOO/HC
Tru* Strain
Figure 7.2-2: Material Curves of Stress vs. Strain
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 999
DP 500/800
DP 700/1000
04000 0«000
True Strain
CP800/1000
MS 950/1250
00009 00»0 03*00 00100 OOMO 01000 01:00
True SBun
CP 1050/1470
01000 01*00 0:000 OJSOO 01000 0)500 04000 04SOO
True swm
0200 OiOO
True Stnki
HF 1050/1500
- 00111*:
-OL/M<
-1/w
-10/we
True Strain
Figure 7.2-3: Material Curves of Stress vs. Strain
Table 7.2-2: Material Curves of Stress vs. Strain (Aluminum)
Steel Density Poisson's l^odul.u?!°f Lower Ultimate Tensile Tot EL
Grade (t/mm3) ratio ,^5='. YS (MPa) Strength (MPa) (%)
5754
Aluminum
Cast
Aluminum
6082 T6
Aluminum
2.7E-9
2.7E-9
2.71 E-9
0.28
0.28
0.33
7.0
7.0
7.1
x104
x104
x104
117
160
321
283
246
370
26.0
10.0
5.8
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1000
7.2.4 Load Path Analysis
In order to determine which components are the main contributors to the crash load path,
45 major section forces were measured in the five crash load cases.
Figure 7.2-4 through Figure 7.2-8 show the sectional force dominated parts in the five
crash loadcases of the baseline model. The section force of each part cross section was
calculated from the corresponding loadcases. The force level was shown as bar chart to
see the significance of each loadcase in Figure 7.2-9.
Higher section force means the components are important in load path transfer in each
crash events. Since optimization process requires one single CAE model to iterate all
loadcases simultaneously. So section force should be combined into as one loadcases and
the magnitude of each section force should be normalized as combined section divided
with five maximum section force of each loadcase.
Figure 7.2-4: Section Force of Baseline Model in Front Crash
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1001
Figure 7.2-5: Section Force of Baseline Model in Front Offset Crash
Figure 7.2-6: Section Force of Baseline Model in Side Crash
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1002
Figure 7.2-7: Section Force of Baseline Model in Rear Crash
Figure 7.2-8: Section Force of Baseline Model in Roof Crush
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1003
lLi_ In Hi. in.
ii mil
• ii ii. in
fMV55m_SlNCAJ> : SECTION fORCB
ii.iiiiii n
(MV5HDl.BEAii.M06: SECTION FORCES
I.l
.ll.ll .ll
...lltll
l . I I I I . . . . • . . . .
fMVSWlfaJWOf JSUSH: SECTION (QSCB
.1.1.1..,
r<#'*^^^
Figure 7.2-9: Section Force Bar Chart
As shown in Figure 7.2-10, the corresponding components of highlighted area in the
normalized section force chart were considered as primary target parts.
\\
Top Priority
Illlllll
jjiiiMjjiiijt'ini'ijjjninj'ijjji'Ujnjii'iijnji nun ini
Figure 7.2-10: Normalized Combined Sectional Force Bar Chart
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1004
7.2.5 Subsystem Weight Reductions
Legend
•
•
A
X
Gauge and Grade
2 -Eng. Expertise
Gauge Opt
Aluminum/Magnesium
Frame
-10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
I
i
u.u '
-10.0
-20.0
X -24.7
-30.0
-40.0
-50.0
-60.0
-70.0
• u.u
• -7J5 -7.8
• -23.7
t -30.6
+ -57.3
Peformance
Figure 7.2-11: Weight Reduction of Frame
-5%
i
20.0
0.0 <
-20.0 ?*
-40.0
-60.0 -
-80.0 -
+ -I
-1
-120.0 -
.4
Cabin
5%
A -8.0
10%
15%
20%
Peformance
Figure 7.2-12: Weight Reduction of Cabin
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1005
-4%
~ X
3
I
-:-:
Cargo Box
-2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
-0.6 °-°
-5.0
-10.0 -
-12.0
-15.0 -
-20.0 -
-25.0 -
-30.0
-35.0 <
-40.0
' u-« A -U.b
-12.6
> -34.4
Peformance
Figure 7.2-13: Weight Reduction of Cargo Box
-40% -30% -20%
t I 1
| X-4.1
i
i
Front Bumper
-10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
' n A ^ n A ' ' ' '
u.u ~
-2.0 -
-4.0 -
-6.0
-8.0 -
-10.0 -
-12.0
Perfor
F U.U
• -4.5
A -6.4
•f-9ffl9X -9.9
mance
Figure 7.2-14: Weight Reduction of Front Bumper
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1006
-10%
i
5!
0
Rear Bumper
-8% -6% -4% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8%
8.0
• -6.E.1 6.0
A 4.2 4.0
2.0
-2.0
-4.0
< -6.5 • -6.5 ~60
-
-
»i n n ' ' ' '
O.O
-
4- -6.5
-8.0
Peformance
Figure 7.2-15: Weight Reduction of Rear Bumper
7.2.6 LS-DYNA Model Development
For future development of the Silverado LS-DYNA model the following areas of the
model can be further improved. In most cases this will also require a new test program to
provide the necessary information.
Update the model to a full 2011 4WD configuration
Update the cabin to be fully representative of the 2011 4WD model
Update the powertrain mounts (material models for rubber and detailed modeling of the
mounts)
Update the Body to Frame rubber mounts with complete static and dynamic mount
performance and attaching bolt preload test data (to allow compliance and damage)
Update the front and rear prop shaft models with failure load data
Implement damage and failure models for sheet metal in highly loaded regions
Implement failure model for spot-welds and rivets
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1007
7.2.7 FEV Mass Optimized Systems
As part of the study FEV has looked at mass reduction in the chassis and powertrain
systems. The output of the study was a new mass for each system with no redesign of the
system or part being performed.
For the crashworthiness study the mass of each system was tuned via density / lumped
mass (along with reduced Young's Modulus in some cases) to ballast the system models
to the new target mass.
Some of the components provide a major load path in the crashworthiness loadcases and
would require a complete redesign to perform with the new material which was outside of
the scope of this project. The systems detailed below have the potential to have an
influence on the crash performance (with the possibility of new failure modes being
introduced)
Rear Leaf springs (steel to composite) - large deformation in the rear impact 301
simulation.
Chassis components (steel to aluminum) -control arms, axles
7.2.8 Key Updates from the 2007-2011 CAE Model Implemented
1) Frame (2011AWD)
The frame was scanned /modeled and meshed in full to create an updated model.
2) Cab - updates to welds
The cab was inspected visually and the weld positions updated in some areas
3) Tow bar
The tow bar was scanned/modeled and meshed in full to create a new updated model.
4) 4x4 Driveline components
The transfer case, front driveshaft, rear driveshaft, front brake calipers, front differential
and drive axles were modeled and added to the model.
5) Mass distribution (as per 2011 AWD)
The mass distribution was taken from the FEV teardown data and distributed into the LS-
DYNA model onto the existing components.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1008
7.2.9 Cost Assumptions
Table 7.2-3: Part Process Data for Cost Estimation
PartSije
6-large Panel
6-large Panel
4- Medium High Complex
6- Large Panel
3-Medium Low Complex
6-large Panel
3-Medium Low Complex
4- Medium High Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
6-Large Panel
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
2-Small
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium LC1/.1 Complex
3-Mecfium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
2-Small
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
ti-Large Panel
4-MecFium High Complex
3-Medium Low Complex
Material
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
DP 300/500
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/27X)
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Referen.ee -Mile WO/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Cold Rolled Reference -Mild 140/270
Thickness
0.99
0.85
1.82
0.97
1.51
0.85
0.99
1.82
1.53
0.99
0.73
0.7
1.53
1.01
2.16
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.7
1.21
1.53
1.01
2.16
1.5
1.52
0.99
1.21
1.51
0.57
1.59
1.51
Scrap Percentage
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.55
0.65
0.55
0.65
0.55
0.65
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.3
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.3
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.65
0.6S
0.55
Blank Mjss (kg)
29.81352
17.697075
3.3797445
17.60022
2.33S0385
18.011235
0.71211185
3.3794145
5.1314145
14.7011535
1.50692395
1.3577442
1.82652
0.3042494
0.52861045
1.8053625
1.50tiS27S5
1. 3053935
1.35791315
1.2417267
1.826551
0.304051S
0.52862595
3.979563
4.9270315
0.7119646
1.24150195
2.3879765
17.60418
9. -1176555
6.707501
Blank Surface Area
3336263.27
2652240.54
236560.8245
2311408.497
201462.7325
2699323.342
91631.19732
236537.7266
427244.0365
1891675.159
262965.5266
247087.2066
152076.9327
38374.14391
31175.42168
315044.4937
262943.7567
315049.9034
247117.9527
130728.7151
152079.5138
38349.22116
31176.33581
337967.1338
412925.8716
91612.24939
130705.0534
201457.502
231192S.557
754529. 1431
565366.706
Cycle time
400
400
450
400
500
400
500
450
500
400
500
500
500
1300
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
1200
500
500
500
500
500
500
400
450
500
Eqpmnt. Invest
Transferl-1400
Transferl-1400
Tandems- 600
Transferl-1400
Tandeml-350
Transferl-1400
Tandeml-350
Tandems- 600
Tandeml-350
Transferl-1400
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Progressivel-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-330
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Progressivel-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Tandeml-350
Transferl-1400
Tjnoem3-600
Tandeml-350
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1009
Table 7.2-4: Material Price
1
2
3
4
5
6
T
e
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Reference
US Spot Midwest Market
Price Trend 2009
Cold Rolted Reference -Mild
140/270
BH 210/340
BH 260/370
iH 200/41X1
IF 260/410
IF 300/420
HSLA 350/450
HSLA 420/500
HSLA 430/600
HSLA 550/650
SF 570/640
SF 600/780
TW 350/600
TRIP 400/700
TRIP 450/800
TRIP 600/980
FB 330/450
FB 450(600
DP 300/500
OP 350/600
DP 500/800
OP 700/1000
OP 1150/1 270
CP 500/800
CP 600/900
CP 750/900
CP 800/1000
CP 1000/1200
CP 1050/1470
MS 950/1200
MS 1150/1400
TWIP 500/980
MS 1350/1500
HF 1050/1 500 (22MnB5)
Basa Aluminum
A! 61 11 Exposed
AI6111
AI6081
AI5454
AI5182
AI5754
AI6022
AI6082
AI7000
Al Sandcast (Generic]
Ref
Material
Price
(S/kg)
0.93
0.98
0.98
1.00
1.00
1.03
1.05
1.07
1.09
1.28
1.28
1.28
1.33
1 38
1.43
1.48
1.13
1,18
1.13
1.18
1.24
1.31
1.31
1.24
1.28
1.33
1.38
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.41
213
1.44
1.68
2.20
4.29
4.29
4.29
3.85
3.85
3.85
4,29
4.29
4.68
12.10
Grade
Premium
(Sftg)
0.00
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.20
0.25
0.20
0.26
0.31
0.38
0.38
0.31
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.48
1.20
0.51
0.75
0,00
2.09
2.09
2.09
1.65
i.es
1.6S
2.09
2.09
2.48
9.90
HDG
Premium
(S/hg)
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
010
0.10
0.10
010
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
NA
NA
010
0.10
NA
Exposed
Premium
li/fcg)
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.10
0.10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Tailor
Rolled Coil
Premium
l$/kg)
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.5S
O.SS
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.55
Tubes
(straight, as
shipped)
Premium
(S/kgl
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.30
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.55
0.50
0.52
0.52
0.55
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.65
0.65
Multiwall
Tube Blank
Premium
(Slkg)
0.65
0.65
0.65
1.10
0.70
1.10
1.50
1.25
1.65
1.65
2.05
2.05
1.25
1.65
1.30
1.35
1.10
1.65
0.85
1.25
0.90
0.95
0.95
1.30
1.32
1.32
1.35
1.40
1.80
1.00
1.40
1.80
1.05
1.05
Tool
Investment
Factor
1.0
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.15
1.05
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.15
1.15
1,15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Line Rate
Factor
1.0
0.95
095
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.35
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.80
0.80
O.SO
0.00
0.80
0.80
0.80
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Reject Rate
Factor
1.0
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.1S
1.1S
1.05
1.10
1.10
1.10
1.15
1.15
1,15
1,15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
ftftft
Steel and Aluminum scrap prices of $0.22/kg and $2.00/kg respectively
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1010
Table 7.2-5: Assumptions for Equipment, Building and Overhead Cost
Parameters
Production Volume
Annual Paid Time
Wage (Average)
Unit energy Cost
Interest
Equipment Life
Product Life
Building Life
Building unit cost
Number of Indirect workers per direct worker
Number of Indirect workers per line
Number of Indirect workers per direct Assembly worker
Number of Indirect workers per Assembly station
CO2 (USA Electricity Production)
Assumptions
200,000
3600
35
0.07
8%
20
5
25
$1,500
0.25
1
0.2
0.125
833
per year
hours
$ USD/hr
$ USD /kWh
years
years
years
$ USD/sqm
g/kWh
Table 7.2-6: Assumptions for Manufacturing Energy, Maintenance and Labor Cost
Parameters
Energy consumption rate
Space requirement
Manpower
Unplanned downtime
Maintenance Percentage
Material loss percent
Reject rate
Press line die average change time
Press line lot size
Assumptions
(Blanking)
150kW/hr
100 sqm/line
1 worker/line
2 hrs/day
10%
1%
0.10%
NA
NA
Assumptions
(Stamping)
150kW/hr
50 sqm/line
part dependent
3 hrs/day
10%
NA
part dependent
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1011
Table 7.2-7: Assumptions for Manufacturing Labor Cost
Direct Labor Rate
Stamping Press Operator
Blanking, Trimming
Heat Treat Operator
General Assembler
Die Cast Operator
Forging Operator
Rollforming Operator
Welding Operator
Mean hourly wage
$24.69
$15.84
$16.71
$22.54
S15.31
$15.66
$17.46
$15.72
Benefits (41%)
$10.12
$649
$6.85
$9.24
$628
$6.42
$7.16
$6.45
Total
134.81
$22.33
$23.56
S3178
S21 59
$22.08
$24.62
S22.17
Table 7.2-8: Assumptions for Material Cost of Assembling
Assembly Process
1 -Adhesive
2-Laser Braze
3- Laser • Robotic
4-l.a-ier - Robotic (Lafqe)
5-MIG
6- RSW -Small (static)
7-RSW
8- RSW (Medium)
9- RSW (Large)
1 0-Faslening
FO - RSW (Framer)
F1 - Laser (Framer}
1 3-Hemming
14-SPR(Rwet)
Conned.
Rate
(connects/
sec)
05
1 0
1.0
1 0
02
1 0
0?
Joining
Speed:
(m'sec)
03
OOB
ooe
OOB
002
oor
001
Connecl
Spacing
(meters)
0035
0035
0035
0036
004
001
Cycte Time
(sec/cycle)
30
30
30
30
40
100
50
50
50
50
50
30
40
55
Power
Requirement
(kWor
KWh/connecf)
300
1150
1150
1150
330
004
004
004
004
002
010
1150
050
0002
Electrode
Life
(melefs or
connects)
3000
3000
3000
3000
6000
Electrode
Cost
(S/eteclrode)
046
045
0.45
045
065
Gas Use Rale
(l/mor
^connect)
033
033
033
200
Gas Cost
(M)
002
002
0.02
001
Adhesive
Use Rate
(kglmor
kg/connect)
001
030
030
Adhesive/FiRer
Cost
(S*g)
2000
090
100
Fastener
Cost
(S/fastener)
010
004
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1012
Table 7.2-9: Assumptions for Labor and Equipment Cost of Assembling
Assembly Process
1 'Adhesive
2-Laser Braze
3-Laser - Robotic
4-Laser - Robotic (Large)
5-MIG
6-RSW- Small (static)
7-RSW
8-RSW (Medium)
9-RSW (Large)
1 0-Fastening
FO - RSW (Framer)
F1 - Laser (Framer)
13-Hemming
14-SPR (Rivet)
Assembly
Equipment
per station
(Wstation)
3
2
2
8
1
2
4
6
8
2
3
3
1
2
Unit
Assembly
Equipment
cost
(^/operator)
125.000
600000
500 000
500 000
130.000
30.000
75,000
120.000
120.000
30.000
120.000
150.000
400.000
120.000
Idle
Stations
per
Assembly
1 000
1.000
1 000
1.000
0.500
0 170
0.170
0330
0250
2000
1.000
1 .000'
2.000
2.000
Idle Stations
Cost
25,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Labor
Requirement
(lab/Assembly
Equipment)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
020
0.50
050
025
025
1 00
1 00
200
1 00
1 00
Requires
Figure
(S, 0-No)
120.000
1.500,000
150.000
1,500.000
150.000
50000
50,000
150,000
2.000.000
65.000
250000
250000
120000
50000
Station
Cost
(S.'station)
20,000
50000
50.000
50000
10.000
20000
20.000
20000
20.000
75.000
900.000
950.000
10000
50.000
Requires
Transport
(Yes-1,No-0)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Station Space
(sqmfetation)
100
100
100
200
100
50
100
150
200
100
250
360
100
100
Additonal
Equipment
(S/station)
550,000
§910.000
S400.000
S600 000
S50 000
S50 000
SSO.OOO
S50 000
550.000
550,000
S600.000
51,400,000
550.000
550.000
Table 7.2-10: General Assumptions for Assembly Cost
Parameters
Available Operating Time
Paid Operating Time
Gross Line Rate
Station Cycle Time for One Line
Actual Station Time
Number of Parallel Lines
Part Loading Time
Clamp/Unclamp Time
Transfer Time
Minimum Allowable Station Time
Transport System Cost per Station
Assembly Unplanned Downtime
Assembly Maintenance Cost
Assumptions
3240
3456
62
58
58
1
5
6
3
30
100000
1.6
10%
hours / year
hours / year
jph
seconds
seconds
sec/part
seconds
seconds
seconds
$/station
hrs/day
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1013
8. Glossary of Terms and Initials
Assembly: a group of interdependent components joined together to perform a defined
function (e.g., turbocharger assembly, high-pressure fuel pump assembly, high-pressure
fuel injector assembly).
Automatic Transmission (AT): one type of motor vehicle transmission that can
automatically change gear ratios as the vehicle moves, freeing the driver from having to
shift gears manually.
BAS (Belt Alternator Starter): a system design to start/re-start an engine using a non-
traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) starter motor. In a standard internal ICE the
crankshaft drives an alternator, through a belt pulley arrangement, producing electrical
power for the vehicle. In the BAS system, the alternator is replaced with a starter
motor/generator assembly so that it can perform opposing duties. When the ICE is
running, the starter motor/generator functions as a generator producing electricity for the
vehicle. When the ICE is off, the starter motor/generator can function as a starter motor,
turning the crankshaft to start the engine. In addition to starting the ICE, the starter motor
can also provide vehicle launch assist and regenerative braking capabilities.
BIW (Body in white): the stage in automotive design or manufacturing in which a car
body's sheet metal components have been welded together — but before moving parts
(doors, hoods, deck lids, fenders) the motor, chassis sub-assemblies, or trim (glass, seats,
upholstery, electronics) have been added and before painting.
Buy: components or assemblies a manufacturer would purchase versus manufacture. All
designated "buy" parts, within the analysis, only have a net component cost presented.
These types of parts are typically considered commodity purchase parts having industry
established pricing.
CAD (Computer-aided Design): use of computer systems to assist in the creation,
modification, analysis, or optimization of a design. CAD software is used to increase the
productivity of the designer, improve the quality of design, improve communications
through documentation, and to create a database for manufacturing.
CAE (Computer-aided Engineering): Computer software to assist in engineering and
design tasks.
CBOM (Comparison Bill of Materials): a system bill of materials, identifying all the
subsystems, assemblies, and components associated with the technology configurations
under evaluation. The CBOM records all the high-level details of the technology
configurations under study, identifies those items which have cost implication as a result
of the new versus base technology differences, documents the study assumptions, and is
the primary document for capturing input from the cross-functional team.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1014
CFA (Chemical Foaming Agent): compound which facilitates the formation of foam or
helps foam maintain its integrity by strengthening individual foam bubbles, acting as
surfactants and reducing surface tension.
Component: the lowest level part within the cost analysis. An assembly is typically
made up of several components acting together to perform a function (e.g., the turbine
wheel in a turbocharger assembly). However, in some cases, a component can
independently perform a function within a sub-subsystem or subsystem (e.g., exhaust
manifold within the exhaust subsystem).
Costing Databases: the five core databases that contain all the cost rates for the analysis.
(1) The material database lists all the materials used throughout the analysis along with
the estimated price/pound for each. (2) The labor database captures various automotive,
direct labor, manufacturing jobs (supplier and OEM), along with the associated mean
hourly labor rates. (3) The manufacturing overhead rate database contains the
cost/hour for the various pieces of manufacturing equipment assumed in the analysis. (4)
A mark-up database assigns a percentage of mark-up for each of the four main mark-up
categories (i.e., end-item scrap, SG&A, profit, and ED&T), based on the industry,
supplier size, and complexity classification. (5) The packaging database contains
packaging options and costs for each case.
Dual Clutch Transmission (DCT): is a differing type of semi-automatic or automated
manual automotive transmission. It utilizes two separate clutches for odd and even gear
sets. It can fundamentally be described as two separate manual transmissions (with their
respective clutches) contained within one housing, and working as one unit. They are
usually operated in a fully automatic mode, and many also have the ability to allow the
driver to manually shift gears, albeit still carried out by the transmission's electro-
hydraulics.
ED&T (engineering, design, and testing): initialism used in accounting to refer to
engineering, design, and testing expenses.
EPS: Electric Power Steering.
ESC: Electronic Stability Control.
FWD (Front-wheel Drive): Not to be confused with four-wheel drive, which is
commonly (and preferably) abbreviated as 4WD or AWD today.
Gasoline Direct Inject (GDI): variant of fuel injection employed in modern two-stroke
and four-stroke gasoline engines. The gasoline is highly pressurized, and injected via a
common rail fuel line directly into the combustion chamber of each cylinder, as opposed
to conventional multi-point fuel injection that happens in the intake tract, or cylinder port.
HEEDS® MDO: Hierarchical Evolutionary Engineering Design System
Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. It is a software package that interfaces with
commercial CAE tools in order to automate and improve the search for better product
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1015
and/or process designs. It generically interfaces with analysis codes through batch
execution and different forms of scripting, but also includes direct interfaces to several
commonly used CAE tools (e.g., Microsoft Excel, ABAQUS, Nastran).
Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV): type of hybrid vehicle and electric vehicle which
combines a conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) propulsion system with an
electric propulsion system.
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE): an engine in which the combustion of a fuel occurs
with an oxidizer in a combustion chamber.
Indirect Cost Multipliers (ICM): developed by the EPA to address the OEM indirect
costs associated with manufacturing new components and assemblies. The indirect costs,
costs associated with OEM research and development, corporate operations, dealership
support, sales and marketing material, legal, and OEM owned tooling, are calculated by
applying an ICM factor to the direct manufacturing cost.
Indirect Labor (IND): manufacturing labor indirectly associated with making a physical
component or assembly.
Intellectual property (IP): distinct types of creations of the mind for which a set of
exclusive rights are recognized under the corresponding fields of law.
Lean Design® (a module within the Design Profit® software): used to create detailed
process flow charts/process maps. Lean Design uses a series of standardized symbols,
with each base symbol representing a group of similar manufacturing procedures (e.g.,
fastening, material modifications, inspection). For each group, a Lean Design
library/database exists containing standardized operations along with the associated
manufacturing information and specifications for each operation. The information and
specifications are used to generate a net operation cycle time. Each operation on a
process flow chart is represented by a base symbol, operation description, and operation
time, all linked to a Lean Design library/database.
Maintenance Repair (MRO): all actions which have the objective of retaining or
restoring an item in or to a state in which it can perform its required function. The actions
include the combination of all technical and corresponding administrative, managerial,
and supervision actions
Make: components or assemblies a manufacturer would produce internally versus
purchase. All parts designated as a "make" part, within the analysis, are costed in full
detail.
MAQS (Manufacturing Assumption and Quote Summary) worksheet: standardized
template used in the analysis to calculate the mass production manufacturing cost,
including supplier mark-up, for each system, subsystem, and assembly quoted in the
analysis. Every component and assembly costed in the analysis will have a MAQS
worksheet. The worksheet is based on a standard OEM (original equipment
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1016
manufacturer) quote sheet modified for improved costing transparency and flexibility in
sensitivity studies. The main feeder documents to the MAQS worksheets are process
maps and the costing databases.
MCR (Material Cost Reduction): process employed to identify and capture potential
design and/or manufacturing optimization ideas with the hardware under evaluation.
These savings could potentially reduce or increase the differential costs between the new
and base technology configurations, depending on whether an MCR idea is for the new or
the base technology.
MDO (Multidisciplinary Design Optimization): a field of engineering that uses
optimization methods to solve design problems incorporating a number of disciplines.
Metal Injection Molding (MIM): metalworking process where finely-powdered metal is
mixed with a measured amount of binder material to comprise a 'feedstock' capable of
being handled by plastic processing equipment through a process known as injection
mold forming.
MMC (Metal Matrix Composite): composite material with at least two constituent
parts, one being a metal. The other material may be a different metal or another material,
such as a ceramic or organic compound.
MSRP: Manufacturing Suggested Retail Price.
Naturally Aspirated (NA): common type of reciprocating piston internal combustion
that depends solely on atmospheric pressure to counter the partial vacuum in the
induction tract to draw in combustion air.
Net Component/Assembly Cost Impact to OEM: the net manufacturing cost impact
per unit to the OEM for a defined component, assembly, subsystem, or system. For
components produced by the supplier base, the net manufacturing cost impact to the
OEM includes total manufacturing costs (material, labor, and manufacturing overhead),
mark-up (end-item scrap costs, selling, general and administrative costs, profit, and
engineering design and testing costs) and packaging costs. For OEM internally
manufactured components, the net manufacturing cost impact to the OEM includes total
manufacturing costs and packaging costs; mark-up costs are addressed through the
application of an indirect cost multiplier.
NCAC: National Crash Analysis Center.
NHTSA: National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.
NIDMC: Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost.
NTA (New Technology Advances): a process employed to identify and capture
alternative advance technology ideas which could be substituted for some of the existing
hardware under evaluation. These advanced technologies, through improved function and
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1017
performance, and/or cost reductions, could help increase the overall value of the
technology configuration.
NVH (Noise Vibration Harshness): the study and modification of the noise and
vibration characteristics of vehicles.
OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer manufactures products or components that are
purchased by another company and retailed under that purchasing company's brand
name. OEM refers to the company that originally manufactured the product. When
referring to automotive parts, OEM designates a replacement part made by the
manufacturer of the original part.
Port Fuel Injected (PFI): method for admitting fuel into an internal combustion engine
by fuel injector sprays into the port of the intake manifold.
Powertrain Package Proforma: a summary worksheet comparing the key physical and
performance attributes of the technology under study with those of the corresponding
base configuration.
Power-Split HEV: In a power-split hybrid electric drive train there are two motors: an
electric motor and an internal combustion engine. The power from these two motors can
be shared to drive the wheels via a power splitter, which is a simple planetary gear set.
Process Maps: detailed process flow charts used to capture the operations and processes
and associated key manufacturing variables involved in manufacturing products at any
level (e.g., vehicle, system, subsystem, assembly, and component).
PTWA (Plasma Transferred Wire Arc): a thermal spraying process that deposits a
coating on the internal surface of a cylindrical surface, or external surface of any
geometry. It is predominantly known for its use in coating the cylinder bores of an
engine, enabling the use of aluminum engine blocks without the need for heavy cast iron
sleeves.
P-VCSM (Powertrain-Vehicle Class Summary Matrix): records the technologies
being evaluated, the applicable vehicle classes for each technology, and key parameters
for vehicles or vehicle systems that have been selected to represent the new technology
and baseline configurations in each vehicle class to be costed.
Quote: the analytical process of establishing a cost for a component or assembly.
Risk: state of uncertain probabilities that exist in which the possibilities of outcome are
not entirely certain or are measured by percentiles in terms of success, failure, loss, gain,
etc.
RPE: Retail Price Equivalent.
SG&A (Selling General and Administrative): is an acronym used in accounting to
refer to Selling, General and Administrative Expenses, which is a major non-production
costs presented in an Income statement.
-------
Analysis Report BAV-P310324-02_R2.0
June 8, 2015
Page 1018
SMS (Secondary Mass Savings): mass decompounding.
Sub-subsystem: a group of interdependent assemblies and/or components, required to
create a functioning sub-sub system. For example, the air induction subsystem contains
several sub-subsystems including turbocharging, heat exchangers, pipes, hoses, and
ducting.
Subsystem: a group of interdependent sub-subsystems, assemblies and/or components,
required to create a functioning subsystem. For example, the engine system contains
several subsystems including crank drive subsystem, cylinder block subsystem, cylinder
head subsystem, fuel induction subsystem, and air induction subsystem.
Subsystem CMAT (Cost Model Analysis Templates): the document used to display
and roll up all the sub-sub system, assembly, and component incremental costs associated
with a subsystem (e.g., fuel induction, air induction, exhaust), as defined by the
Comparison Bill of Material (CBOM).
Surrogate part: a part similar in fit, form, and function as another part that is required
for the cost analysis. Surrogate parts are sometimes used in the cost analysis when actual
parts are unavailable. The surrogate part's cost is considered equivalent to the actual
part's cost.
System: a group of interdependent subsystems, sub-subsystems, assemblies, and/or
components working together to create a vehicle primary function (e.g., engine system,
transmission system, brake system, fuel system, suspension system).
System CMAT (Cost Model Analysis Template): the document used to display and roll
up all the subsystem incremental costs associated with a system (e.g., engine,
transmission, steering) as defined by the CBOMs.
------- |