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.

Safe

Affordable

Fuel Efficient

Environmentally 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 )

TACOM
IMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 2 )

IMPACT - 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.

IMPACT - 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 the

left-hand (driver) side and a different technology to the to the righthand (passenger) side of the vehicle.

IMPACT - 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 IMPACT
IMPACT - Cost Benefit Analysis ( 3 )

Program Goals – Technical Goals (Government)

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 – Ford Motor Company

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 Level Program Results

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 & RESULTS
IMPACT - 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 Results

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 Results

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 I
IMPACT - 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 Results

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-piece 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 Results

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 Results

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 Results

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 Investment Detail

Total Partner Investment

TYPE Phase I Phase 2 Phase 3 All Phases

Cash $ 1,028,809 225,000 $ 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 $ 3,085,530 225,000 $ 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