# INTRODUCTION

The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) leverages a simple acronym to highlight and promote the advantages of using today’s steel to manufacture vehicles.

S afe A

ffordable F uel Efficient E nvironmentally Responsible
The IMPACT program, which stands for Improved Materials and Powertrain Architectures for 21st Century Trucks, provided a rare opportunity for the AISI to prove those attributes.
The focus of the IMPACT program is to design, incorporate and validate fuel efficient, lightweight technologies in demonstration vehicles of next generation, high-volume, commercially based truck platforms.
Partners in the program included Ford Motor Company, U.S. Army TACOM, American Iron and Steel Institute, Mississippi State University, University of Louisville, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) sponsored the IMPACT program to develop strategies for reducing weight, enhance performance, improve mobility and increase fuel economy of tactical trucks for the U.S. Army. The modern military requires a more agile vehicle fleet that is lighter, more affordable and quickly deployable anywhere in the world.
IMPACT is part of the DoD’s Dual Use Science and Technology (DUST) program, in which industries such as Ford, the government and academia leverage resources to optimize technologies that have potential applications in both military and commercial vehicles (dual use).
In addition to government financial support, Ford and the AISI contributed to the funding of IMPACT. The AISI provided in-kind engineering services (engineering, technology, consortium study information, etc.), steel materials for prototypes, specific soft tool funds and component prototypes.

AISI member companies involved in IMPACT included Bethlehem Steel Corporation, North Star Steel, Dofasco Inc., Rouge Steel Company, Ispat Inland Inc., Stelco Inc., LTV Steel Company, National Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group (USX Corp.), WCI Steel, Inc. and Weirton Steel Corporation.

IMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 1 ) TACOMIMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 2 ) 

### IMP ACT - Phase 1 IMPACT Phase 1 focused on defining vehicle architecture and the underlying structural theory for selecting proper materials to reduce vehicle weight in the most efficient, cost-effective manner. It explored “widespread but arguable paradigms” that weight reduction in vehicles always adds cost, and expensive non-steel materials are required to achieve mass savings that exceed 25%. The study directly challenges the assumed light-weighting advantages of aluminum over steel.



### IMP ACT - Phase 2 IMPACT Phase 2 designed and built a full vehicle platform prototype to achieve very aggressive weight and fuel-economy targets. The program required that the team achieve a lighter version of the baseline truck, without compromising cost and any customer-driven vehicle attributes such as durability, appearance, noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) or safety and crashworthiness. The F-150 is a high-volume, commercially based truck platform.
Exploring new materials and technologies were emphasized in Phase 2. While, for the most part, designs and materials chosen were based on business case analyses, the IMPACT prototype serves as a “technology demonstrator” for several stretch technologies. In some cases multiple technologies were implemented per component in the vehicle. This was accomplished by applying one technology to theleft-hand (driver) side and a different technology to the to the righthand (passenger) side of the vehicle.



### IMP ACT - Phase 3 IMPACT Phase 3 was a pre-production exercise that emphasized implementation of technologies and manufacturing feasibility of new designs and materials on near-term production models. The intent is to use Phase 3 developments for super-duty trucks in the 2005 and 2007 model years. 

# THREE PHASES OF IMPACTIMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 3 ) 

### Program Goals – T ec hnical Goals (Gov ernment) 1. Up to 25% weight reduction utilizing the best mix of technology. 2. Technology Commonality Across Platforms & Dual Use Applications. 3. Superior Structural Performance & Life Cycle Operational Characteristics. 4. Business Case for Further Research & Commercialization Investments.



### Program Goals – F ord Motor Com pan y 1. The above to meet the Government Contract: a. Minimum of 25% weight reduction b. Affordable weight reduction 2. Up to 50% Fuel Efficiency Improvement. 3. Maintain or improve system performance attributes (NVH, Safety, Corrosion, etc).



### Program Goals – AISI Automotive Applications 1. The above to meet the Government and Ford project objectives 2. Keep steel the material of choice for automotive applications.



### High Le v el Program R esults 1. 60% of IMPACT technology applied to new and future Ford platforms.

2. Steel Remains material of choice for Ford.
3. Accelerated AHSS technological capabilities within AISI member companies.
4. $100 million/year cost save at Ford due to IMPACT technologies. 

# PROGRAM GOALS & RESULTSIMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 4 ) Timing: July 1, 1999 – June 30, 2000 Cost: $ 225,000 (AISI direct)



### Objectives 1. Define a materials selection process based upon bulk material properties. a. Define a best or optimum design b. Demonstrate how bulk material properties affect the design 2. Perform detailed comparison of steel and aluminum for elements of lightweight truck design. 3. Quantify the weight reduction and design trade offs generated by the materials improvement process.



### Program R esults 1. High strength steel is a competitive lightweight material. 2. Aluminum does not have insurmountable advantages over steel for auto bodies. 3. Alternative designs are necessary for high strength steel to reach its potential. 4. By judicious redesign, steel can narrow the gap with that of aluminum in mass savings capability. 5. Aluminum proposals are generally optimized in comparison to the non-optimized steel designs they benchmark. This artificially enhances the apparent weight advantages of aluminum in comparison to steel. 6. Use of high strength steels essentially eliminates the advantage that aluminum holds over mild steel in specific strength. 7. The lower density of aluminum is a comparatively small advantage, saving no more than 5 to 10% of the baseline body weight. By itself, this does not justify the use of aluminum as the primary structural material in car and truck bodies.



### AISI R esults 1. Lambda (gauge sensitivity) factor can be used to develop structurally efficient automotive design. 2. By building effective joints steel can approach the overall vehicle weight of an aluminum alternative at significantly lower cost. 3. Redesigned bulkhead rocker design – Ford Mustang. 

# PHASE IIMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 5 ) 

# PHASE II

Timing: October 1999 – September 2001 Costs: $ 1,028,809 - AISI direct $ 1,708,221 - AISI in-kind $ 348,500 - AISI material



### Objectives: 1. Up to 25% weight reduction. 2. Technology Commonality Across Platforms & Dual Use Applications. 3. Superior Structural Performance & Life Cycle Operational Characteristics. 4. Business Case for Further Research & Commercialization Investments. 5. Up to 50% Fuel Efficiency Improvement. 6. Maintain or improve system performance attributes (NVH, Safety, Corrosion, etc). 7. Keep steel the material of choice for automotive applications.



### Program R esults 1. Designed a pickup truck that is 25% lighter than the current generation F-150 Crew Cab and improved fuel economy by 50%. 2. Weight savings were effectively accomplished throughout the vehicle, including:

Module Weight Savings (lbs.) Weight Savings (%) Powertrain 249 18 Chassis 383 24 CAB / Front End 130 20 Pickup Box 61 25 Closures 181 29 Interior 121 28

3. A significant number of applications were converted to medium and high-end Bake Hardenable, Dual Phase, high strength low alloy and ultra high strength steel grades. 4. Dual Phase steel grades were prioritized by the project, which enabled significant gage and mass reductions throughout the Phase 2 vehicle. 

### 5. Conversion of 12 parts back to steel was primarily accomplished through the development and presentation of optimized steel designs by AISI to Ford IMPACT Engineering, including:IMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 6 ) IMPACT Phase 2 - Alternative Material to Steel Conversions Application Start Design End Design Engine Mounts Metal Matrix Composite AHSS Brackets Transmission Mounts Metal Matrix Composite AHSS Muffler Titanium Stainless Tow Hooks Aluminum AHSS (Forging) Skid Plates Composite AHSS Wheels Aluminum Kuhl Steel Wheel Seats Aluminum / Magnesium AHSS Fender Outers Aluminum AHSS Front Door Assembly Aluminum “Spaceframe” Steel Inner PUB Body Side Outer SMC AHSS Front Bumper Aluminum Stainless / AHSS Rear Bumper Aluminum Stainless / AHSS

6. Weight savings without design change, and for that matter with pre-existing tooling. 7. Many of the Phase 2 modifications involved 10% part thickness reduction through high strength steel substitution. This capability is unheard of from non-steel suppliers. 8. There are over 180 new technologies in the Phase II vehicle. Ford estimates that other programs at Ford have already adopted approximately 20% of the 180 technologies, including:

IMPACT Phase 2 - New Steel Technologies and Ford Applications Closed Section Frame (Dual Phase) ’04 F-150 (Dual phase ’08) Hydro-formed Front Frame Rail ’04 F-150 & Expedition Dual Phase Steel Skid Plates Not yet potential for ’08 vehicle Microalloy Coil Springs Across many car lines Kuhl Steel Wheels ’05 Freestar & Mustang New Tow Hook Design No Redesigned Rear Cab ’04 F-150 Redesigned Axle Shaft No Roll formed HSS Pickup Box Floor 2010 application TWB Door Opening Panel ’04 F-150 New Roof Structure No Redesigned HSS Tailgate ’07 F250/350 TWB Rear Door Inner ’04 F-150 & Expedition, ’05 Ford 500 Redesigned Dual Phase Shotgun 2008 application potential BH 210 PUB Outer (Replaced SMC) ’04 F-150 Multi-pi ece Front Door Inner No HSS/UHSS Seat Frames Under consideration (contact Tier 1) Integrated Bumper/Hitch system ’04 F-150 & future vehicles

9. Dual Phase steel materials were instrumental in achieving safety and crashworthiness benchmarks. Ford engineers reported that, without Dual Phase steels, they could not have validated the lightweight design modifications made to the frame. 10. The application of Dual Phase steel to outer body applications also played a significant role in mass savings achievement.11. The most intriguing finding by Ford during the IMPACT Phase 2 process was the ability to save both weight and cost with steel. This phenomenon eventually served as impetus for the Ford 2005 “Big Bang” initiative. 12. Project IMPACT, unlike any other vehicle program, allowed for in depth business case analyses that compared steel vs. alternative materials on a level playing field (optimized design forms). On a consistent basis the advantages of steel were proven. 13. During Phase 2 design, AISI successfully collaborated with Tier 1 suppliers to prove the benefits of high strength steel. As an example of this, Johnson Controls, Inc. (JCI) and the AISI teamed up to substantially cut the weight in the F-150’s seating systems. For future vehicle programs, Ford intends to leverage lessons learned in Phase 2 and cultivate more cooperation between itself, Tier 1 and material suppliers.



### AISI R esults 1. Steel remained the material of choice in numerous “high profile” components. Saved 12 parts from going to alternate materials. Redesigned many more parts to lighter gauge AHSS value added products. 2. AISI member companies worked directly with Ford advanced engineers, at the start of the design. 3. Closed the door on alternate materials at Ford. 4. Ford put a hold on alternate material programs as a result of IMPACT’s steel solutions. 5. Identified champions at Ford to drive steel technology. 6. Developed “off the shelf” technology to be used across entire Ford product line. 7. Expanded/accelerated steel mill product development. 8. Increase knowledge base of most involved steel companies relative to Ford vehicle design architecture and requirements.

IMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 7 )IMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 8 ) 

# PHASE III

Timing: June 2001 – May 2003 Costs: $ 389,870 - AISI direct $ 305,479 - AISI in-kind $ 769,250 - AISI material $ 407,000 - AISI internal hard dollars 

### Objectives: 1. Up to 25% weight reduction. 2. Technology Commonality Across Platforms and Dual Use Applications. 3. Superior Structural Performance and Life Cycle Operational Characteristics. 4. Business Case for Further Research and Commercialization Investments. 5. Up to 50% Fuel Efficiency Improvement. 6. Maintain or improve system performance attributes (NVH, Safety, Corrosion, etc). 7. Keep steel the material of choice for automotive applications. 8. Prove manufacturing feasibility (forming and joining) of advanced high strength steels for F250/350 design proposals. 

### Program R esults

The IMPACT Phase III activity resulted in the conversion of several Phase II alternative material applications back to steel. Most noteworthy of these are the rear frame cross members, which will convert back to steel from aluminum, and the radiator support, which converts back to steel from magnesium through its incorporation with the hydroformed tube steel front end structure. These conversions, combined with those accomplished during the Phase II process signify the importance of the IMPACT project relative to the avoidance of alternative material use in Ford future trucks. The success of the Phase III FABRICATE activity was essential to the implementation process of dual phase steel at Ford Motor Company.



### AISI R esults 1. Fabricate drove home enabling technologies at Ford. 2. Phase II timing was such that innovative designs could be applied to next generation F-250/350. 3. Expanded/accelerated steel mill product development. Fender

Door

Mid Transverse Cross Member

Shot Gun Phase III Component Weight Savings Frame 10% (Plus improved performance) Chassis Members 30% (Plus improved performance) Cab 10% (Plus improved performance) Pick Up Box 20% (Plus improved performance) Tailgate 25% (Plus improved performance) Powertrain 4 lbs (for two parts studied)IMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 9 ) 

# SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT

Steel In v es tment Det ail

T

ot al P ar tner In v es tment TYPE Phase I Phase 2 Phase 3 All Phases Cash 225,000 $ 1,028,809 $ 389,870 $ 1,643,679 $ In Kind

- $ 1,708,221 $ 305,479 $ 2,013,700 $ Materials

- $ 348,500 $ 769,250 $ 1,117,750 $ TOTAL 225,000 $ 3,085,530 $ 1,464,599 $ 4,775,129 $

Group Phase I Phase 2 Phase 3 All Phases AISI 225,000 $ 3,085,530 $ 1,464,599 $ 4,775,129 $ Ford 1,686,500 $ 3,387,192 $ 6,551,301 $ 11,624,993 $ TACOM 1,274,400 $ 6,472,722 $ 8,015,900 $ 15,763,022 $ TOTAL 3,185,900 $ 12,945,444 $ 16,031,800 $ 32,163,144 $