## DRAFT

**COST -**  **EFFECTIVENESS OF A 50% BODY AND CHASSIS**  **WEIGHT -**  **REDUCTION GOAL IN LIGHT -**  **DUTY VEHICLES**

Sujit Das Energy and Transportation Science Division Oak Ridge National Laboratory Prepared for Li ghtweight Materials Office of Vehicle Technologies U. S. Department of Energy



### May **20 1**  **0**

OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831 managed and operated by UT
- Battelle, LLC for the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract No. DE

- AC05
- 00OR227251 **Cost -**  **Effectiveness of a 50% Body and Chassis Weight -**  **Reduction Goal in Light**  **- Duty Vehicles**  **Oak Ridge National Laboratory**

**May 20**  **1 0**  **1. Background**  With the recent higher gasoline prices and new emission and fuel econom y regulations that require b y 2016 a 30% reduction in CO 2 and other emissions and an average fuel econom y of at least 35 mpg, the pressure to lightweight vehicles is stronger than ever before. Vehicle lightweighti ng represents one of several design approaches automakers are currentl y evaluating to i mprove fuel economy . The next few y ears will see considerable lightweighting across the automotive industry . Lightweigh t i ng is ty picall y acc omplished by

downsizing, integrating parts and functions, substituting materials, or b y combin ing these methods. Li ghtweight Materials’ (L M’s) component of the U.S. Department of Energy ’s Vehicle Technologies program focuses on the development and validati on of advanced materials and manufacturing technologies to significantly reduce automotive passenger vehicle body and chassis weight without compromising other attributes such as safet y, performance, recyclability, and cost. The specific goals of LM are to develop material and manufacturing technologies by 2010 that, if implemented in high volume, could cost

- effectivel y reduce the weight of passenger

- vehicle body and chassis sy stems by

50% with safet y, performance, and recyclability comparable to 2002 vehic les. In order to achieve this long

- term weight

- reduction goal, LM has set annual intermediate weight

- reduction goals, starting with 10% in FY2007, and finally achieving 50% by FY2010. This paper is a follow

- on to earlier studies that focused on the 25% and 40% body

and chassis weight

- reduction goals of FY2008 and FY 2009, respectively (Das 2008, Das 2009). The present study emphasizes the assessment of cost

- effectiveness to achieve the desired goal of 50% body and chassis weight reduction in FY2010. To ach ieve its long

- term weight

- reduction goal, LM has prioritized its research areas in several lightweighting materials including advanced high

- strength steel, aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and composites. Composites include metal

- matrix materials and glass

- and carbon

- fiber reinforced thermosets and thermoplastics. Over the past several ye ars, the LM R&D portfolio has included assessments of various lightweight body and front

- end structures, such as those constructed of advanced high

- strength steel, composite

- intensive, and magnesium. These assessments, either completed or underway , include, for example, one in which the goal is to design, anal yz e, and develop the technology

for a composite

- intensive, body

- in

- white structure that achieves a minimum of 60% weig ht savings over steel. Additionall y, the latest LM multi

- material vehicle (MMV) project aims to sy nthesize and demonstrate these various lightweight material component options in a single vehicle. Cost remains one of the major obstacles to successful market penetration of these various lightweight materials. Complete vehicle s ys tem - level cost estimation is essential since it captures the cost reduction potential due to both part integration and mass de

-2

compounding effect. Today OEMs remain more focused on the vehicle’s retail price than on vehicle life cy cle cost. This paper provides an assessment of the cost

- effectiveness of a 50% body and chassis weight

- reduction goal for FY2010 using the same methodology as used in the past two studies . The cost

- effect iveness of the proposed weight

- reduction goal is determined based on the vehicle retail and life cy cle cost anal ys is of a potential lightweight material substitution scenario in various body and chassis components to achieve the desired weight

- reduction go al. Cost methodology and potential data sources for the anal ys is are then discussed. Cost data collected for various vehicle components considered for achieving the weight reduction goal are then discussed, as are the assumptions and methodology

used. A di scussion of the results of the cost anal ys is of the proposed scenario is then presented, followed b y conclusions. **2. Approach**  **2.1 Scenario Development** Cost
- effec tiveness of a 50% body and chassis weight

- reduction goal was demonstrated based on a scen ario anal ysis by focusing on a specific lightweight material ty pe substitution at a major vehicle

- component level. A representative mid

- size vehicle, i.e. Honda Accord, was considered as the baseline against which the cost

- effectiveness of the weight reduc tion goal was determined. Due to a significantly higher weight reduction goal, carbon fiber

- reinforced pol ym er - matrix composites (carbon

- FRPMCs) and magnesium were primarily considered for body

and chassis applications. These two materials have the potenti al to achieve the desired weight

- reduction goal. Only carbon

FRPMCs offer the potential for greater than 50% reduction in the weight of body and chassis components while providing strength five times greater than steel for structural parts. Current appli cation of these lightweight materials is limited today . Carbon

- FRPMCs have been used primarily

in high

- end vehicles and race cars. Magnesium use in today ’s light

duty vehicles is limited to less than 10 lbs/vehicle, mainly in interior applications such as instrument panels and parts of the steering structure. It can be found in various mainstream models (e.g., Cadillac models CTS, SRX, STS, Seville; Opel Vectra; BMW Mini, 5 and 7 Series; Rolls

- Roy ce Phantom ; Daimler Chry sler’s SL Roadster; the Jaguar X
- ty p e; or the Alpha Romeo 156). New automotive magnesium components gaining interest are front end structures, engine cradles, center consoles, and powertrain applications. The recent anal ys is by Meridian Lightweight Technologies indicates a 200 lbs total vehi cle weight savings potential b y magnesium use in mid

- size vehicles. There is a great need for development of wrought magnesium products and manufacturing processes to provide improved mechanical and physical properties, crash performance, and corrosion res istance before magnesium’s use in more critical bod y and chassis applications can be expanded.3

Table 1 shows the 50% body and chassis weight

- reduction scenario for a mid

- size passenger car considered in the cost

- effectiveness anal ys is. The scenario focuses on a plausible specific lightweight material substitution option (i.e., mainly carbon

- FRPMC and magnesium) at the broad component category level based on the materials’ near

- term market potential to achieve the desired overall body and chassis weig ht reduction goal. For a few vehicle s ys tems, such as glass, paint, exterior trim, and body hardware, weight reduction has been based on either on a material other than carbon

- FRPMC or magnesium, or as a factor of the vehicle’s overall reduced weight. Figure 1 shows the material composition comparison of two alternative vehicle scenarios by six major material categories. To achieve the 50% weight reduction goal, the distribution of material ty

pes would change significantly . At the expense of conventional st eel, magnesium and poly

mer/composites use would increase significantl y b y 10 and 1.7 times, respectivel y. This scenario approach allows determination of cost

- effectiveness at a vehicle level, the context important for the actual implementation and commerc ialization of the lightweighting materials technologies in the market place. Specific components considered under bod y and chassis vehicle subs ys tems are highlighted in Table 1 (in bold ty pe). The potential weight reduction for each part also is given. Sin ce most lightweight component options considered here are yet to be commercialized, the percentage weight reduction assumed in each case is based on the best estimated value available in the literature today . The definitions of various vehicle components a re based on the Automotive Sy stem Cost Model (ASCM, discussed below) and are provided in Appendix A.

**Figure 1. Material Composition of the Baseline and Alternative Vehicle Scenarios**

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

**Ba se**  **line 50%**  **B ody**  **an d**  **Ch as** 

**si s**  **Wt .**  **Re dn.**  **Sc en**  **ar io** **W e** **i g** **h t** **( k** **g )**  OT HE R Po ly me r/ Com pos ite Ma gnes iu m Alumin um Low Carbon Ste el Hi /Me d Ste el4 **Table 1. Mid -**  **Size 50% Body& Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario**  **1 SYSTEM**  **Baseline 50% Weight Reduction Scenario**  **Technology Ma**  **ss**

**(kg) Technology**  **Ma ss**  **(kg) Pow**  **ertrain** Engine V
- 6 3.0L DOHC AL/AL 197 V
- 6 3.0L DOHC AL/AL 19 7 Energy Storage Lead
- Acid, Standard 19 Lead
- Acid, Standard 1 9 Fuel System Gasoline, 17 gal 83 Gasoline, 17 gal 83 Transmission Automatic (L5) 81 Automatic (L5) 79 P/T Thermal Generic (car) 29 Generic (car) 29 Driveshaft/Axle Generic 77 Generic 7 7 Differential Generic 25 Generic 25 Ex haust System Generic 48 Generic 48 Oil and Grease Generic 15 Generic 15 Powertrain Electronics Generic 10 Generic 10 Emission Control Electronics Generic 10 Generic 10 **Bod y**  Body
- in
- Wh ite Midsize steel unibody 320 **Carbon Fiber Poly mer Composites**  **(68% wt redn.)**  **102** Panels Stamped Steel 60 **Carbon Fiber Poly mer Composites**  **(68% wt redn.)**  **19** Front/Rear Bumpers Sheet Steel 10 **TP/Carbon Fiber (60% wt reduction)**  **4**

Glass Conventional, 4 mm 40 **Poly carbonate (25%**  **reduction) 30**  Paint Solventborne, avg color 12 **Solventborne, avg color (25% wt.**  **reduction) 9**  Ex terior Trim Generic 10 **ULSAB (50% wt. reduction) 7**  Body Hardware Generic 10 **Lightweight (50% wt. reduction)**  **5** Body Sealers and Deadners Generic 2 Generic 2 **Chassis** Cradle Generic 35 **Magnesium (60% wt. reduction)**  14 Corner Suspension Generic 47 **Magnesium (45% wt. reduction)**  26 Braking System ABS 48 **Magnesium (7% wt reduction)**  45 Wh eels and Tires Aluminum 15” 71 **Magnesium 15" --**  **(17% wt. reduction)**  59 Steering System Generic 27 **Magnesium (7% wt. reduction)**  25 **Interior** Instrument Panel Generic 26 Generic 26 Trim and Insulation Generic 24 Generic 24 Door Modules Generic 28 Generic 28 Seating and Restraints Generic 66 Generic 66

HVAC Generic 22 Generic 22 **Electrical** 33 33 **Final Assembly** 40 40 **Total Body**

**& Chassis Weight**  (% less than baseline) 692 346 (50%) **Total Vehicle Weight 1525**  **1180**

1 All weights in the table denote values achieved by primary weight savings only
.5

**2.1. 1**  **Carbon -**  **FRPMC** Application of carbon

- FRPMC in automobiles is quite limited and occurs mostly in low

volume niche vehicles today such as Formula 1 race cars, Mercedes

- Benz McLaren SLR supercar, Mazda’s RX

- 8, Honda’s Legend sedan, Mitsubishi’s Pajero SUV, and Nissan’s late st GT
- R super sports car. BMW has been using carbon fiber composites in its vehicles for a number of ye ars in applications such as the roof of the M

- series car. General Motors is using the Corvette ZR1 to study the feasibility

of high

- volume carbon

- FRPMC p arts, whereas To yota is planning to use a bod y frame made of this material in its 1/X concept car that will offer the same interior space as the Prius hy brid but only

weigh one

- third as much. Recentl y, the new Lexus LFA premium sports car has been designed with a carbon fiber cabin that weighs 200 kg less than a comparable aluminum cabin while maintaining the same rigidity
. Most carbon

- FRP MC applications today include drive shafts, spoilers, A
- pillars, underbod y structures, and various bod y panels for high

- performance, low

volume cars. Three Japanese companies, i.e., Toray I ndustrie s, Teijin, and Mitsubishi Ray on, that control 70% o f the global carbon fiber market are aiming to pioneer mass production of this material for widespread use in cars. For e xample, Teijin , which is planning to start supply ing carbon

- resin composites to automotive parts makers as early as 2010 via its subsidiary

Toho Tenax, is aiming to first make engine undercovers for high

- end sports cars and then move towards mass market mo dels. Toray I ndustries has invested in a German developer of carbon

- FRPMC parts for cars and trucks and is planning to expand its sales for automotive applications to approximately $510 million by

2015, including ultimately

mass - producing carbon

- fiber part s mainly for To yot a. Honda and Nissan have similarly joined with Toray

and Mitsubishi Ray on to research new, less

- expensive carbon fiber for cars. I n 2009, the SGLGroup formed a joint venture with BMW for the development of the material for use in BMW’s M egacit y vehicle, where carbon fiber composites will make up as much as 10

- 15% of the final vehicle weight. To achieve a significantly higher body

and chassis weight reduction goal, this analy sis considers carbon

- FRPMC for three major bod y components as shown in Table 1. These three bod y components, body

- in

- White (BI W), panels, and front/rear, have been consider ed as the most suitable components application of this lightweight material since these components contribute more than 25% of total vehicle weight. Potential percentage weight reduction assumed for these components has been in the mid range of 55
- 60%, alt hough expected weight reduction has been reported to be 45

- 80% compared to mild steel depending on the specific automotive part application. For example, on the equivalent modulus basis and a minimum 75 vol.% resin requirement to facilitate the sufficient wetting out of carbon fibers, carbon

- FRPMC has been shown to have a 64

- 70% weight reduction potential compared to glass fiber but with the manufacturability limitations for having less than 2.5 mm thickness (Ibis 2009c). Focal Project 3 of the Automotive C omposites Consortium (ACC)

— a collaborative, pre

- competitive R&D partnership of the three big U.S. OEMs and DOE

— predicted a 66% BI W weight reduction with a total number of parts less than 20 by demonstrating the potential on a carbon fiber B

- pillar (Iobst e t al. 2007). Similarly , niche vehicles such as X

- Power sports vehicles have demonstrated 70% weight reduction potential in body panels compared6

with steel (Marsh 2006). On the other hand, the structural composite underbody targeted to be a part of the Unit ed States Automotive Material Partnership (USAMP) Multi

Material Vehicle (MMV) project has obtained only 29% weight reduction using carbon fabric for floors. The project’s objective, however, was to capitalize on the material’s strength to optimize the cra sh performance rather than to reduce weight (Berger and Jaranson 2009). In fact, carbon

- FRPMC is currently not under further consideration in the MMV project and a new project on carbon

- FRPMC body structure to optimize the weight savings potential has been under consideration for near

- term funding. Use of carbon fibers in Formula 1 cars such as Mercedes McLaren SL R in monocoque design is 50% lighter than steel components (Marsh 2006), and a 40% reduction in BI W mass without doors and the roof has been repor ted for the Lamborghini Murcielago using carbon/epoxy body material over its an all

- aluminum body predecessor (Feraboli and Masini 2004). Our 68% weight reduction assumption using carbon

- FRPMC for two bod y components (out of total three bod y oconsidered he re for substitution) is more of an optimistic case dictated b y the overall 50% body and chassis weight reduction goal. **2.1. 2**  **Magnesium** Most use of magnesium today has been as high pressure die casting (HPDC) components in a broad range of non Class A

- s urface vehicle applications such as cross

- beam members and dashboard supports where a single cast component can replace various conventional multi

- component steel fabrications cost

- effectivel y. While the growth of magnesium die casting applications seems a ssured, there are other applications such as wheels, suspension arms, subframes, etc. where significant weight saving could be achieved but which require higher integrit y than that provided b y the HPDC process. For automotive chassis and body applications, magnesium offers a number of benefits. In terms of specific strength and stiffness, and buckling resistance, magnesium alloy s compare favorably

with both steel and aluminum. I n the field of chassis applications, Porsche has quite a long experience with ma gnesium wheels and GM has been offering cast magnesium wheels for the Corvette since 1998. However, magnesium wheels have not been applied bey ond these special sport car applications to the high

- volume vehicle market due to their much higher costs and pote ntial corrosion problems. The general experience, however, with material competition in North America has been that the magnesium design is displaced when a lower

- cost solution for a particular weight trimming issue becomes available. To achieve the 50% b ody and chassis weight reduction goal, magnesium substitution was considered in five vehicle chassis components, i.e., corner suspension, cradle, braking sy stem, steering s ys tem, and wheels and tires, as shown in Table 1. Magnesium use in cradle and corner suspension would provide 60% and 45% weight reduction, respectivel y. The potential weight reduction in the corner suspension is less than in the cradle because magnesium’s use in the suspension is limited to control arms and steering knuckles, parts that account for about 47% of the total corner suspension weight when aluminum is used. Magnesium use would provide a further 30% weight reduction in these two parts compared to aluminum. The magnesium cradle weight reduction potential has been based on the USA MP Corvette magnesium cradle design, which has been estimated to y ield a 33% weight reduction compared to aluminum. Both steering and braking7

sy stems would experience a 7% weight reduction with magnesium use, since the application is limited to the steerin g wheel column in the steering sy stem and the brake actuators in the braking system. Magnesium use in steering wheel columns

— which account for 15% of the overall s ys tem weight

— would provide an additional 25% weight reduction compared to aluminum. For wheel s and tires, the total sy stem weight reduction is estimated to be 17% based on the 40% weight reduction magnesium provides in the wheels. To achieve the total savings goal of 50% of the primary body and chassis weight, a 50% reduction in body

hardware weig ht has been assumed. These weight savings are consistent with the target weight for the PNGV

- Class vehicle which has a target weight of around 1000 kg vehicle curb mass (UL SAB
- AVC 1999). **2.1.3 Secondary Weight Savings**  The objective for the selection of lightweighting material options for various vehicle components (as discussed above) was to achieve the primary 50% bod y and chassis weight

- reduction goal. However, consideration of secondary weight savings in body

and chassis components is important becaus e it takes into account the effect of primary savings on the powertrain, chassis, and bod y components. The cost

- effectiveness of lightweighting options depends considerably on the secondary

savings since those savings helps to reduce the overall effect of higher lightweight material cost. Powertrain resizing in secondary

weight savings calculations allows comparisons of functionally equivalent vehicle designs

— a reduced vehicle weight requires a less powerful engine to achieve equivalent performance (i.e., a cceleration, range, etc.). Secondary weight savings have been estimated b y ASCM, and those savings related to the two scenarios considered here are presented in Table 2 along with other estimated major parameters in the cost

effectiveness anal ys is. Total s econdary weight savings and secondary body and chassis weight savings are estimated to be 54% and 14.5% of primary savings, respectively , and depend on the number of vehicle components considered. Most of the secondary weight savings occur in the powertrai n s ys tem and depend on the extent of powertrain downsizing assumed. Since the ASCM includes secondary weight savings only

of major vehicle components (i.e., all chassis components and a few major powertrain and body components), the total weight savings es timated here is somewhat lower than other recent estimates (Malen and Reddy 2007; Saad and Malen 2008). Very significant secondary weight savings were expected for the General Motors 1992 Ultralite carbon body structure that weighed 191 kg (compared to the 102 kg body structure in this analy sis based on primary

weight savings onl y) and demonstrated a super

- lean 635 kg curb weight concept car. Our estimated secondary weight savings are quite close to the industry norm of using 5% secondary

weight savings for every 10% primary

weight savings. With the consideration of secondary weight savings, total body and chassis weight savings are estimated to be 57% as shown in Table 2. There will be a decrease in powertrain weight with powertrain resizing, where engine power is estimated to decrease by 30%. The resulting vehicle weight reduction has been estimated to be 35%. Fuel econom y estimates have been based on a reasonable rule of thumb that each one percent reduction in weight should give a 0.66 percent improvemen t in fuel economy , after a vehicle has been full y redesigned to account for the reduced power demands of a lower8

**Table 2. Major Parameters Considered in the Cost -**  **Effectiveness Analysis of the 50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Goal**  **Parameter Baseline**  **50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario**  Primary Body & Chassis Weight Savings NA 345 kg (50%) Secondary

Weight Savings Bod y & Chassis NA 50 kg (14.5%)* Powertrain NA 137 kg Total NA 187 kg Bod y & Chassis Weight 692 kg 297 kg (57%) Powertrain Weight 594 kg 457 kg (23%) Engine Power 122 kW 85 kW Final Vehicle Weight 1524 kg 993 kg (35%) Combined Fuel Economy 23 mpg 28.3 mpg Fuel Price $3/gallon Vehicle Lifetime Operation 120,000 miles **Note:** % values within parenthesis indicate savings with respect to baseline steel; *% savings based on total primary body and chassis weight savings mass (EEA 2001). Combined vehicle fuel economy would increase from the baseline value of 23 mpg to 28.3 mpg with the 50% bod y and chassis weight

- reduction goal. **2.2 Cost Estimation Methodology**  As with the earlier studies (Das 2008 and Das 2009), this analy sis employ s the Automotive Sy stem Cost Model (ASCM), developed jointly by Oak Ridge National Laboratory

an d Ibis Associates, Inc. in collaboration with Argonne National L aboratory , to estimate the cost

- effectiveness of the 50% bod y and chassis weight

- reduction goal. ASCM estimates the vehicle

- manufacturing cost at a level of five major vehicle subsy stems (powe rtrain, chassis, body , interior, and electrical) consisting of more than thirty

- five components (some components have been shown in aggregate form in Table 1) based on the aggregation of several components under the definition of Uniform Parts Grouping (UP G) generally used by the automotive industry

(as listed and defined in Table 1 and Appendix A). Each component represents a specific manufacturing technology . Vehicle retail price based on the sum of manufacturing cost (i.e., costs of components and assemb ly ), overhead, and selling is added to vehicle operation costs for the vehicle life cy cle cost estimation. The interrelationships among vehicle subsy stems and their effect on vehicle manufacturing cost are addressed, allowing inclusion of the impacts of se condary

mass and cost savings as well. Functional interrelationships have been developed for major chassis components to estimate secondary mass savings based on first principles of ph ysics, and using semi

- empirical and empirical information available from the literature today . The powertrain sizing routine in this model is based on the algorithm used in the Argonne National Laboratory ’s (ANL) h ybrid vehicle cost model (HEVCOST), where the power and mass projections of various powertrain9

components are base d on component

- specific power and efficiency values, with the capability to evaluate alternative hy brid electric vehicle configurations and performance strategies (Plotkin et al. 2001). The main objective of this model is to facilitate estimation of vehicl e - manufacturing and life

- cy cle costs using a uniform methodology to allow comparison of alternative advanced technologies being considered for vehicles today
. This cost model has been integrated into the vehicle performance model PSAT (Powertrain S ys tem An aly sis Toolkit) developed by Argonne National Laboratory , thereb y facilitating instantaneous vehicle cost estimation based on the detailed powertrain component sizing estimates by PSAT. Several studies have used this cost model for a comparative cost asses sment of different powertrain and body

- in

- white options for advanced technology

vehicles (Das 2004 and 2005; Rousseau et al. 2005). Two ty pes of overhead, i.e., OEM and dealer margin are added to the vehicle manufacturing cost to estimate vehicle retail p rice. The former is assumed to be fixed, while the latter varies with the vehicle manufacturing cost. Vehicle operation cost categories considered in the vehicle life cy cle cost estimation include financing, insurance, local fees, fuel, battery replacement , maintenance, repair, and disposal. Financing, insurance, and local fees costs are dictated b y the vehicle retail price, while the fuel cost is dictated by the vehicle’s fuel economy (estimates are shown in Table 2) and a gasoline price of $3.00/gallon, b ased on the latest energy outlook (EIA 2010). With the exception of maintenance and repair, all other operation cost categories vary with the two lightweighting scenarios considered here based on estimated vehicle retail price and fuel econom y. Total life cy cle cost is estimated as the net present value assuming total vehicle lifetime miles are 120,000

— based on average 10,000 miles driven annually and a vehicle life of 12 ye ars
— and a discount rate of 10%. **2.3 Component Cost Data** Component technology

cost data used in the anal ysis are mainly based on the latest estimates developed b y Ibis Associates, Inc. using results of the recent studies developed for the industry

(Ibis 2008 and Ibis 2009a). One such recent study stems from the USCAR
- ACC composite structure programs that have been involved in the detailed cost anal ys is of carbon

- FRPMC body structures. Even detailed cost anal ys es can have limitations

— in this case the limitation is that the program never developed a complete design or high production

- volume

- scale cost analy sis for a full y functional BI W structure. Cost data for other components

—those for which the technology remained unchanged

— were the same as those in the original model, since our objective in this anal ys is is to determine the relative cost - effectiveness of the plausible lightweight scenario to achieve the desired weight reduction goal and not the absolute total vehicle cost. Note that component technology costs in ASCM are based on OEM costs and represented in terms of functional relationsh ips such as component mass and power, based on the detailed cost analy ses available in the literature. Several r ecent USCAR
- ACC composite structure programs have been used in order to extrapolate to a full BIW structure and panel s ys tem functionally equiv alent to the carbon fiber scenario considered previously in ASCM. The ACC programs contributing to this anal ys is include the FP2

- composite truck box, FP3

- carbon fiber structures, the Composite10

Underbod y program, and a recent fiber, preforming, and molding technology tradeoff study (Ibis 2007, 2009b; Berger and Jaranson 2009 and Boeman and Johnson (2002)). The truck box study

evaluated a high volume composite design and process study employ ing P4 preforming and SRIM molding. Similarly , the carbon fiber struc tures program demonstrated a 60% mass savings over steel for a molded carbon fiber composite, although this was a large pillar t ype component and not a full vehicle structure. The Underbody program examined a broad range of concepts, including random and f

abric glass, carbon, and high modulus poly prop yl ene (HMPP) reinforcement through sheet molding compound (SMC) compression, long

- fiber injection (LFI), and direct long

- fiber thermoplastic (DLFT) molding processes. The most recent ACC tradeoff study compared glass, carbon, and natural fiber composites produced through SMC, structural reaction injection molding (SRI M), and resin transfer molding (RTM), and evaluated design based on equivalent strength and stiffness. Mass savings on individual components relati ve to steel ranged from 37% to 70% depending on the tensile or modulus equivalency . As noted earlier, a mass savings of 68% has been assumed in our case of carbon

- FRPMC body structure, i.e., BI W and panels. The production economics in this assessment are based on the recent studies using high production

- rate P4 preforming and SRIM molding, achieving production rates of 15 parts per hour. The carbon material pricing is based on current commercial grade pricing estimates of $17.60/kg ($8/lb), rather than th e optimistic $11.00/kg ($5/lb) target price for the ongoing DOE ALM R&D efforts (considered later as a part of the sensitivity anal ys is), and $4.24/kg for poly urethane s ys tems. The entire bod y structure and carbon SMC panel systems were modeled using IBIS Technical Cost Models and the new regression analy ses have been conducted to establish updated cost relationships sensitive to production volume, mass, material price, piece count, and part area. Figure 2 shows the estimated cost sensitivity to annual pro duction volume of carbon

- FRPMC body

- in

- white structures for a mid

- size vehicle. Estimated costs are based on the baseline BIW and panel mass of 128 kg and 42 kg, respectivel y, representing a 49% reduction in mass compared to the baseline steel bod y s tructu res. As one would expect, carbon

- FRPMC body structure is quite insensitive to annual production volume since it is a low

- volume process: total part cost varies less than $20/part and is relativel y constant at around $2,690/part bey ond production volume of 50,000 parts/y ear. The cost sensitivity

to annual production volume for body

- in

- white structures of various materials is shown in Figure 3. The costs represented in Figure 3 include the assembl y cost. Cost graphs shown here are based on the baseline weigh t for a mid

- size vehicle considered in the model and not the actual weight used in the anal ys is here. For example, baseline masses of bod y - in

- white structure considered for steel, aluminum, and thermoset/glass composites (TS/glass composites) are 250 kg, 1 43 kg, and 202 kg, respectivel y. Bod y structure cost in this figure is based on the material pricing as follows: steel $0.77/kg; aluminum sheet $3.31/kg; aluminum casting $2.86/kg; viny l ester compound $4.24/kg; glass fiber $1.50/kg; and carbon fiber $17.6 0/kg. Based on these material prices and masses assumed, the carbon

- FRPMC structure is more expensive than all other lightweight material options considered here, except at annual production11

volume of less than 25,000 parts, when the aluminum unibody is mo re expensive than carbon

- FRPMC. The crossover between these two materials is estimated to occur between production volumes of 25K

- 50K. The current estimate is consistent with most past studies indicating cost parity of carbon

- FRPMC with conventional baseli ne steel structure at a production volume in the range of 5,000

- 35,000 at carbon fiber prices of $11

- $17.50/kg (Kang 1998 and Fuchs 2008). Fuchs (2008) estimate of a cross

- over point of 35,000 for the cost

- effectiveness of traditional steel and carbon comp osites represents 45% of car models and 10% of all cars produced in North America in 2005. However, another stud y indicates the cost

- effectiveness of a directed carbon fiber preforming closure panel to be between 500

- 9,000 annual part production volume (Tu rner et al. 2008). Similarly , the recently completed European superlight

- car project shows a 36% body

- in

- white weight reduction potential but at a cost penalty of $705 at a daily production volume of 1,000 vehicles (VGR 2008). The cost sensitivities of ste el and aluminum structures are quite similar to each other in terms of the curve slope, but they are offset b y the material price difference and some increased processing costs. `As also has been observed earlier, the cost sensitivity curves for composite body structures (i.e., for both glass

- FRPMC and carbon

- FRPMC) are relatively flat compared to other materials. For our analy sis, the threshold production volume of cost

- effectiveness is 240K parts/y ear for baseline steel and 50K parts/year for the lightwei ght vehicle.

**Figure 2. Carbon**  **- FRPMC**  **Body Structure**  **Cost Sensitivity to**

**Annual Production Volume** 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0 50 100 150 200 250 300**C a** **r b** **o n** **- F** **R P** **M C** **B o** **d y** **S t** **r u** **c t** **u r** **e C** **o s** **t (** **$ /** **p a** **r t** **)**

**Annual Production Volume (K)** Structure Assembly Panels Total12 **Figure 3.**  **Lightweight Material Body -**  **In -**  **White Cost Sensitivity to**

**Annual Production Volume**

**Figure 4. Magnesium Chassis Component Cost Sensitivity to Material Price**  Figure 4 shows the per

- part cost sensitivity to magnesium casting price for four different magnesium chassis components considered under the carbon

- FRPMC scenario based on

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 **An nua**  **l Pr oduc**  **ti on V**  **olum e**  **(K )** **B o** **d y** **- i** **n -** **W h** **i t** **e S** **t r** **u c** **t u** **r e** **C o** **s t** **( $** **/ p** **a r** **t )** 

St eel U ni bo dy Al uminum Un ib od y TS /G la ss Co mpo site CF Co mpo site

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 **Mg A**  **lloy Ingot Price**  **($/kg) P** **a r** **t C** **o s** **t (** **$ )**  Brak e Syste m Ste ering Syste m Cradle Corner Su sp ens ion

Ba se Pr ic e $4. 44/ kg13

part weight used in a mid

- size vehicle as shown under the baseline scenario in Table 1. Note that the part cost estimates for the base price of $4.44/kg for magnesium alloy ingot price is also shown. The cost estimates for the magnesium cradle includes not only casting cost, but also melting, scrap recovery , machining, a nd corrosion protection. Cost estimates of magnesium braking and steering s ys tems were made by adding the estimated cost of replaced magnesium component (e.g., brake actuators and steering wheel column for braking and steering systems, respectivel y) to the unchanged original balance of sy stem cost made of conventional steel. Cost data for replaced chassis magnesium components are based on the recently developed chassis cost relationships using the available EEA estimates (Ibis 2008 and EEA 2007). These rela tionships consist of two components, i.e., material and processing, with material cost a function of magnesium alloy ingot price. With the exception of the cradle and steering s ys tem, the cost relationships for the remaining magnesium chassis components we re not explicitly developed. For these remaining s ys tems, relationships are based on the corresponding aluminum component relationships, which were modified to take into account higher magnesium weight reduction potential and using a multiplicative factor in the material component of the cost relationship to reflect the difference in material prices. As Figure 4 shows, the higher amount of magnesium substitution in the cradle than in the case of the corner suspension causes the former component to be m ore sensitive than the latter one to magnesium alloy ingot prices. The sensitivity of steering and braking s ys tem costs to magnesium allo y ingot pricing is not significant since the magnesium components contributes less than 10% of total s ys tem weight in e ach case. Estimated cost for the steering s ys tem is about 1.5 times more than the braking s ys tem cost, although the mass relationship between them is quite contrary . The cost of cast magnesium wheels (not shown on this figure) are based on 15” wheels, and new relationships were developed using the same procedure as outlined above. I t reflects current material pricing and processing technology improvements and also includes tire costs. It has been assumed to have 20% price premium for processing compared to cast aluminum wheels (EEA 2007 and Long et al. 2005).
**3.0 Results** Figure 4 shows the estimated cost savings resulting from the 50% bod y and chassis weight savings of the carbon

- FRPMC scenario compared to the baseline, by major vehicle s ys tems, vehicle r etail price, and life cy cle cost. Only three major vehicle s ys tems are considered because the cost of other vehicle sy stems

— interior, electrical, and final assembly

— are assumed to be the same under all scenarios. There would be a $373/vehicle increase in retail price and a $1,212/vehicle life cy cle cost savings assuming a fuel price of $3.00/gallon and carbon fiber price of $8.00/lb. The increase in vehicle14 **Figure 4. Estimated Cost Savings of 50% Body and Chassis**

**Weight Reduction Scenario** retail price is mainl y due to the body s ys tem cost increase of about $1,424, the result of the higher cost of carbon unibody structure. The assumption of significant weight reduction potential of 68% has moderated the body

- in

- white price increase. The cost savings due to downsizing the powertrain and chassis is not sufficient to lower the vehicle retail price. However, the 50% weight reduction goal can be achieved with a life cy cle cost savings because the fuel econom y benefits more than offset the small vehicle retail price increase. The life cy cle saving occurs even though a number of operation cost categories (e.g., financing, insurance, and local fees) are functions of vehicle retail price. Magnesium use in chassis components does not result in much change in the ove rall chassis sy stem cost as component sizes are reduced considerabl y to meet the overall bod y and chassis weight reduction goal. Since the retail price difference is so small, the fuel price was found to adversely affect life cy cle cost effectiveness onl y if fuel price dropped below $1.50/gallon. I t is estimated that if the price of magnesium used in chassis components is reduced from the baseline price of $4.44/kg to $3.85/kg and carbon fiber price is reduced from the baseline price of $17.60/kg to DOE’s l ong - term target value of $11.00/kg, the cost

- effectiveness at the vehicle retail price level could be achieved, while the assumed gasoline price of $3.00/gallon remains. Unless the carbon fiber price drops to about $2.20/kg while the fuel price remains at $3/gallon, carbon fiber price alone cannot provide the vehicle retail price equivalence (as shown in Figure 5). For carbon

FRPMC to achieve cost

- effectiveness at the vehicle retail price level, onl y less

- than

significant material price decreases in several lightweight materials in combination would be necessary
. 1361

- 1424 - 133

- 373 1552 1212

**- 2000**  **- 1500**  **- 1000**  **- 500**  **0 500**  **1000 1500**  **2000**

**1 C** **o s** **t S** **a v** **i n** **g s** **( $** **/ v** **e h** **i c** **l e** **)** Powertrain Body Chassis Vehicle Retail Price Operation Life Cycle Cost15

**Figure 5. Carbon Fiber Price Sensitivity to Vehicle Retail Price Difference** 
An alternative 50% bod y and chassis weight reduction scenario was also considered. In this alternative the weight r eduction potential in body structures is assumed to be around 60%, achievable based on the current technology today . In order to achieve the overall 50% primary

weight savings goal, the anal ys is includes material substitutions in two interior body

componen ts, i.e., seat frames and instrument panel, both components in which magnesium use has been successfull y commercialized. Both of these magnesium components have been successfull y implemented by Jaguar, and magnesium seating applications occur in several ve hicle models such as Hy undai Azera, Mercedes Benz SL K 350, Acura RL, and L exus L S. Meridian Technologies, Inc. is currently producing some of these components, such as steering column brackets and instrument panels, at the rate of 3 and 2.5 million parts p er ye ar, respectively . It is estimated that magnesium use would cause a weight reduction of 55% and 33% for seat frames and instrument panel, respectivel y, with the corresponding cost premiums of 45% and 56%, respectively (Greer 2010 and EEA 2007). Table 3 shows the estimated weight savings differences between the original 50% weight reduction scenario and this alternative “Mg Interior” scenario. Vehicle mass decreases as secondary body and chassis mass savings increase from 14.5% in the original 50% weig ht reduction scenario to 16.8% in the “Mg Interior” scenario. The increased secondary weight savings results not in the interior components themselves, but in the affected bod y and chassis components, particularly the bod y - in

- white. For example, secondary weight savings for body

- in

- white was found to be 14 kg and 19 kg for the original and new 50% body and chassis weight reduction scenarios, respectively . Under the “Mg Interior” scenario, the final vehicle weight decreases 9 kg and fuel econom y improves 0.1 mpg. Due to more extensive use of the relativel y high priced magnesium

**0 100**  **200 300**  **400 500**  **600**

**0 5**  **10 15**  **20 25**  **Ca rbon**  **Fi be**  **r Pric**  **e ($/**  **kg) V** **e h** **i c** **l e** **R e** **t a** **i l** **P r** **i c** **e D** **i f** **f .** **( $** **)**16

($4.44/kg) components, cost equivalence is not achieved at either the vehicle retail price or life cy cle cost level. It is estimated that the vehicle life cy cle cost s premium would be $131/vehicle, compared to $1,212/vehicle savings obtained under the original scenario.

**4.0 Conclusions** Cost
- effectiveness of ALM’s 2010 goal to reduce body and chassis weight in light duty vehicles b y 50% was assessed based on the use of lightweight material options for various body

and chassis components under a plausible mid

- size vehicle scenario. The wei ght reduction goal here is very similar to the earlier 1990s Partnerships of a New Generation Vehicle target and the recently expressed intention of the Japanese government to mass - produce a cost

- effective, recyclable carbon fiber vehicle and use it to ach ieve a 40% reduction in cars’ weight b y the middle of the next decade (Brooke 2009). The lightweight material substitution options considered here focused on carbon

- FRPMC for bod y s ys tems and magnesium for chassis components to achieve the weight reduction goal. Among potential lightweighting materials, carbon

- FRPMC has the greatest weight savings potential. An alternative scenario to achieve the desired weight reduction goal included more extensive magnesium use coupled with less weight savings potential f or carbon

- FRPMC. The analy sis also considered the effect of the 50% primary weight savings on all vehicle components that can be resized while maintaining the same level of vehicle performance with the reduced vehicle weight. These weight savings are known as secondary weight savings. Due to consideration of secondary weight savings, total body **Table 3. Estimated Major Parameters of the Cost -**  **Effectiveness Analysis of the 50% Body and**

**Chassis Weight Reduction Goal Scenarios , including Mg Interior Scenario**  **Parameter Baseline**  **50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario**  **50% Body and Chassis Weight Reduction Scenario**  **Mg Interior** Primary Body & Chassis Weight Savings NA 345 kg (50%) 345 kg (50%) Secondary

Weight Savings Bod y & Chassis NA 50 kg (14.5%) 58 kg (16.8%) Powertrain NA 137 kg 138 kg Total NA 187 kg 196 kg Bod y & Chassis Weight 692 kg 297 kg (57%) 289 kg (58%) Powertrain Weight 594 kg 457 kg (23%) 456 kg (23%) Engine Power 122 kW 85 kW 84 kW Final Vehicle Weight 1524 kg 993 kg (34.8%) 984 kg (35.4%) Combined Fuel Economy 23 mpg 28.3 mpg 28.4 mpg Vehicle Retail Price Savings NA
- $373

- $1,200 Vehicle Life Cy cle Cost Savings NA $1,212

- $13117

and chassis weight savings are estimated to be 57%, whereas the final vehicle weight savings of 35%. Cost
- effectiveness of the 50% body and chassis weight reduction goal is estimated in terms of both vehicle retail price and life cy cle cost using the detailed 35+ component level automotive sy stem cost model developed by ORNLand Ibis Associates, Inc. Cost data of components considered for lightweight material substit ution are collected from recent major studies, thereby reflecting the latest technology developments and material prices. With the consideration of powertrain resizing and secondary body and chassis mass savings, the carbon

- FRPMC lightweight material vehi cle option is cost

- effective in meeting the ALM 50% body and chassis weight savings goal from the life cy cle cost perspective if current gasoline prices continue. The slightly higher vehicle retail price

— an increase of $373

— results mainly from using the ca rbon

- FRPMC body sy stem which is $1424 more expensive than the baseline s ys tem. The body sy stem’s higher cost is mostly offset by the powertrain and chassis savings. The higher vehicle retail price does affect some of the operation cost categories such as f inancing, insurance, and local fees which are functions of vehicle retail price. The effect, however, is outweighed by fuel efficiency and the resulting fuel cost savings at the life cy cle level. The vehicle retail price is estimated to be only $373 higher than baseline since the consideration of secondary weight savings significantl y reduces the final vehicle bod y weight to 993 kg. Because the estimated vehicle retail price premium is relatively small, only

small decreases in some combination of various lightweight material prices would be required to achieve the cost

- effectiveness goal at the level of vehicle retail price

—the primary consideration of OEMs for determining the viability of an y new vehicle technology
. Magnesium and carbon fiber prices need to be at around $3.85/kg and $11.10/kg, respectivel y for the lightweight vehicle to be cost

- effective at the retail price level. The material prices assumed in the anal ys is are $17.60/kg for carbon

- FRPMC and $4.44/kg for magnesium. However, the volatile na ture of both material prices and fuel price could affect life cy cle cost equivalence. The extent of secondary mass savings is an important consideration in vehicle price and life cy cle cost. This analy sis employ s a conservative estimate of secondary

mass s avings compared to some recent estimates in the literature. An alternative scenario that uses more magnesium to account for smaller (60%) weight savings for carbon

- FRPMC finds that the relatively higher magnesium price would result in higher vehicle retail price and the reduce life cycle cost savings. Finding s in this anal ys is are consistent with earlier findings that vehicles with high carbon

- FRPMC are more expensive than baseline vehicles. However, with the significantl y lower cost of commercial grade carbon fiber available today and the high level of weight reduction offered b y carbon

- FRPMC, the material is largely competitive. Also carbon

- FRPMC technology is suited mainly

to low annual production volume, and a reduction in carbon fiber price would help to a large extent to improve its viability
. Composite monocoque BIW designs considered in the past several studies indicate cost to be in the range of 41

- 73% higher than the steel unibody , depending on the ty pe of tooling used (Mascarin et al. 1995). Vehic le platforming considerations which allow low18

annual production volumes would facilitate the competitiveness of carbon

- FRPMC body structure (Fuchs et al. 2008). Li ghtweighting also improves the cost

- effectiveness of advanced technology

vehicles by

lowering the expensive powertrain cost while maintaining the performance, which has been considered onl y in a few of the latest studies and would be critical in the successful commercialization of the lightweight materials technology

(Aluminum Association 2008, Br ooke 2009, and Das 2005). Consideration of powertrain resizing, secondary mass savings, and life cy cle cost perspectives would therefore be important to maximize the fuel econom y gains from a lightweight structure and eventual successful market penetration of lightweight vehicles in the future. A recent cost assessment of vehicle mass reduction using a sy nergestic vehicle teardown approach indicates that a total 20

- 40% vehicle mass reduction can be achieved without any

powertrain weight savings consideratio n (LE I 2010). Similarly , a recent review article on trends related to automobile mass reduction technology also indicates that advanced vehicle mass optimization techniques such as use of a diverse mix of materials could y ield vehicle mass reductions of 30 % or greater but would involve some additional costs and manufacturing process modifications (L utsey 2010). Overall vehicle cost impacts have been estimated to be minimal, only 3% higher even in the 40% mass reduction case, with an extensive use of aluminu m and magnesium in body structure components, close to 150 lbs/vehicle. With a higher lightweighting goal, reduced material cost become more critical because it is such a large share of the total part cost particularl y in low production

- volume manufacturin g processes. Accordingl y, current foci of DOE’s lightweight materials program are the development low cost carbon fibers from alternative inexpensive renewable resources and high

- volume processing of composites.19 **REFERENCES** Aluminum Association (2008). “Aluminum Vehicle Structure: Manufacturing and Lifecy cle Cost Analy sis: Hy brid Drive and Diesel Fuel Vehicles,” Research Report No. 2008
- 05, written b y Ibis Associates, Inc. for the Aluminum Association. Berger, L. and Jaranson, J. (2009). “Automotive Co mposites Consortium Focal Project 4,” FY 2007 Progress Report for Lightweighting Materials, Vehicle Technologies Program, U.S. Department of Energy , Washington, DC, Available at: http://www1.eere.energy .gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/vt_lm_fy 07.html , acces sed on 5/22. Boeman, R. G. Johnson, N. L(2002). “Development of a Cost Competitive, Composite Intensive, Bod y - In
- White,” SAE Paper No. 2002
- 01
- 1905, the Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. Brooke, L. (2009). “ A Featherweight Future, ” Automotive Engineering International , Vol. 117, No. 5, May , pp. 24
- 26 Das, S. (2004). “A Comparative Assessment of Alternative Powertrians and Body

- in

White Materials for Advanced Technology Vehicles,” SAE Paper No. 2004

- 01
- 0573, the Society

of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. Das, S. (2005). “Lightweight Opportunities for Fuel Cell Vehicles,” SAE paper no. 2005

- 01
- 0007 , the Society

of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA. Das, S. (2008). “Cost

- Effectiveness of a 25% Body and Chassis Weight

- Reductio n Goal in L ig ht

- Dut y Vehicles,” draft report, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, Aug. Energy and Environmental Anal ys is, Inc. (EEA) (2001). “Technology and Cost of Future Fuel Econom y Improvements for L ig ht

- Duty Vehicles,” draft report for Nat ional Academ y of Sciences, June 4. Energy and Environmental Anal ys is, Inc. (EEA) (2007). “Anal ys is of Light

- Duty Vehicle Weight Reduction Potential,” draft final report submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy , Office of Policy , Arlington, VA, July
. En ergy I nformation Administration (EI A) (20 1 0). “Annual Energy Outlook 20 1 0 with Projections to 2030 : Early Release Overview (Summary Reference Case Tables), http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html , accessed on 3 / 17 / 10. Feraboli, P. and A. Masini. (2004) . “Development of Carbon/Epoxy Structural Components for a High Performance Vehicle,” Composites: Part B , Vol. 35, pp. 323

- 330.20

Fuchs, E. R. H., F.R. Field, R. Roth, and R.E. Kirchain. (2008). “Strategic Materials Selection in the Automobile Bod y: Economi c Opportunities for Poly mer Composite Design,” Composites Science and Technology , Vol. 68, pp. 1989

- 2002. Greer, D. (2010). Meridian L ig htweight Technologies, Pl ym outh, MI. Personal communication with Sujit Das, Oak Ridge National Laboratory , Oak Ridge, TN, Apr. 2. Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2007). “Technical Cost Model Development for a Structural Composite Underbody : Supporting USCAR

- ACC Composite Structures Program,” Waltham, MA. Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2008). “Data Document: ORNLAutomoti ve System Cost Model,” Waltham, MA, July 1. Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009a). “Data Document: ORNLAutomotive Sy stem Cost Model,” Waltham, MA, April 9. Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009b). “Technical Cost Analy sis & Model Development: Fiber and Pr ocess Preforming Alternatives: Supporting USCAR

- ACC Composite Structures Program,” Waltham, MA. Ibis Associates, Inc. (Ibis) (2009c). “Technical Cost Model Development: Fiber and Process Preforming Alternatives,” presentation made to the USCAR

– ACC Comp osite Structures Program, Mar. Iobst, S. Berger, L. Fernholz, K. Dahl, J. and Smith G. (2007). “Fabrication of the Automotive Composites Consortium Carbon Fiber B

- Pillar,” International SAMPE Sy mposium and Exhibition (Proceedings), v 52, SAMPE’07: M and P

– From Coast to Coast and Around the World, Conference Proceedings, 2007, 11p. Long, S. Xu, S. and Cao, H. (2005). “Technical Economic Considerations for Production and Application of Mg Castings in China,” Materials Science Forum , Vols. 488

- 489, pp. 909
- 914, June. Lotus Engineering, Inc. (LEI) (2010). “An Assessment of Mass Reduction Opportunities for a 2017

- 2020 Model Year Vehicle Program,” Version Rev006A, report prepared for the International Council on Clean Transportation, Mar. Also available at: http://tiny url.com/ ykp3soz Lutsey , N. (2010). “Review of Technical Literature and Trends Related to AutomobileMass

- Reduction Technology ,” report prepared for California Air Resources Board, Institute of Transportat ion Studies, Universit y of California, Davis, May
.21

Malen, D. E. and Redd y, K. (2007). “Preliminary Vehicle Mass Estimation Using Empirical Subsy stem Influence Coefficients,” report prepared for the FGPC Mass Compounding Project Team, Auto/Steel Partnershi p, Southfield, MI , May 9. Marsh, G. (2006). “Composites Conquer with Carbon Supercars,” Reinforced Plastics , Jan., pp. 20
- 24. Plotkin, S. et al. (2001). “Hy brid Vehicle Tech nology

Assessment: Methodology , Analy tical Issues, and Interim Results,” Argo nne National Laboratory Report ANL/ESD/02

- 2, Argonne, IL. Rousseau, A. Sharer, P. and Das, S. (2005). “Trade

- off between Fuel Economy and Cost for Advanced Vehicle Configurations,” presented and published at EVS21conference, held in Monaco, Apr. 2

- 5. Saad, A . and Malen, D. (2008). “Mass Influence Coefficients: Phase 2,” draft report prepared for the FGPC_Mass Compounding Project Team, Auto/Steel Partnership, Southfield, MI , Dec. 26. Turner, T. A. Harper, L. T. Warrior, N. A. and Rudd, C. D. (2008). “Low

- cos t Carbon Fiber based Automotive Bod y Panel S ys tems: A Performance and Manufacturing Cost Comparison,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

– Part D: Journal of Automobile Engg ., Vol 222, pp. 53

- 63. Ultra light Steel Autobody

– Advanced Vehic le Concepts (ULSAB

- AVC) (1999). “Description of UL SAB
- AVC Benchmarking and Target Setting,” Southfield , MI
. Nov. 18. Volkswagen Group Research (VRG) (2008). “Multi

- material L ig htweight Vehicle Structure: EU
- Project “Super Light Car”,” Status Final SL C
- Bod y Concept, May.22 

### Appendix A **ASCM Vehicle Component Definit**  **i on** 
**ASCM UPG**  **ASCM Description**

**Group Name**  **Pow ertrain**  Engine 30A Base Engine In this model, 'engine' refers to conventional heat engines. In addition to basic powerplant and auxiliary systems and components, engine cooling systems, lubrication, fluid containers and pumps are also included. 30B Other Engine

Components Fuel Cell n/a Fuel Cell Power System Generator n/a The APU or power converter for parallel and series hybrids. Motor n/a The electric motor, including power cables. Controller/ Inverter n/a The power controller/phase inverter system Energy Storage 36K01 High Voltage Battery The primary electrical energy storage device or package.

Ma ybe a single battery or module of linked cells. Fuel System 36F Fuel Tank and Lines Fuel tank, gauge, tank shield, access door, mounting

straps, fuel pump. 37B Fuel Transmission 36E G Transmission In this model the transmission refers to the gearbox only. Note that in some literature, "transmission" refers to the clutch, gearbox, driveshaft, and differential. These are each treated as separate components/subsystems in this model. 36C Clutch and

Controls Supplied as a single assembly, a releasable coupling that

transmits torque from the engine to gearbox. Driveshaft/ Ax le 31 Final Drive A single assembly that couples with the gearbox and differential 31 Final Drive An assembly of the axle shaft, housing, boots, and couplings to the wheels Differential 31 Final Drive Transmits energy from driveshaft to axles and allows for differential speed of each wheel. P/T Thermal Cooling module (radiator, fan assembly etc) Ex haust System 36E

36O Ex haust System

Catalytic Converter All exhaust equipment after the manifold; pipe: catalytic

converter, muffler. Powertrain Electrical 30C Engine Electrical Engine control wiring, sensors and processors. The controller for electric motors for HEVs may be considered as part of the electric motor, or could be included here, if desired. Low voltage used for accessory power is also included here. Emission Control Electronics 30C10 Engine Emission Controls The sensors, processors, and engine feedback

equipment that maintain emissions within specified p arameters. Oil and Grease 37B Oil and Grease Engine oil, transmission oil, miscellaneous lubricants **Bod y**  B IW 11A
- 11B Body in W hite and closures The Body
- In
- Wh ite is the primary vehicle structure,

usually a single
- body assembly, consisting of engine compartment, passenger cabin, and storage. Closure panels (including hinge mechanism) and hang
- on panels (such as fenders) are included, even if non
- structural. In this model, doors are included as well.23 **ASCM UPG**  **ASCM Description**

**Group Name**  Front/Rear Bumper 36G Fenders Glass 18 Glass Front and rear windshields, door window glazing Paint 22 Paint and Coating Includes the cost and mass of the total painting operation; e - coat, priming, base coats, color coats, clear coats. 37A, C, D Paint Ex terior Trim 14, 20 Molding and Ornaments Bumper cover, air deflectors, ground effects, side trim,

mirror assemblies, nameplates Body Hardware Door window mechanism, wipe/wash, defog/deice, door latch mechanism Body Sealers & Deadeners Self
- explanatory
**Chassis** Cradle 32 Frame A front sub frame that bolts to the BIW and supports the mounting of the engine Corner Suspension 33 Suspension Upper and lower control arms, ball joints, spring, shock absorber, steering knuckle, stabilizer shaft Braking System 35 35D Brakes Hub, disc, bearings, splash shield, and calipers. Wh eels and Tires 36A 36C Wh eels, Tires, and Tools Self explanatory. Tools determinant by type of tires

featured. Steering System 34 Steering A complex system from the steering wheel, column, joints, linkages, bushes, housings and potentially hydraulic or electric assist equipment. **Interior** Instrument

Panel 21 Trim and Insulation The instrument panel module consists of an underlying

panel structure, knee bolsters and brackets, the instrument cluster, exterior s urface, wiring, console storage, glove box panels, glove box assembly and exterior, and a top cover. Trim and Insulation 15,17,21 Headliner Headliner is actually the overhead system containing acoustical sound absorption, assist handles, coat hooks, modular headliner assemblies, overhead console assemblies, small item overhead storage, pillar trim, sun visors and retainer. Center Console Emergency brake cover, switch panels, ash trays, arm

rest, cup holders, sometimes grouped with seating. Package Tray A molded or formed panel behind the rear seat,

sometimes contains accessory brake light. Carpeting/Flooring Acoustical sound absorption; padding and carpet,

insulation and accessory mats sometimes flooring may be sold as part of a combined acoustic package, also involving other sound abatement components, such as wheel well liners and under hood insulation Door Modules 19 Convenience Items A door panel system containing door insulation, door trim

assemblies/panels, map pocket trim, cup ho lders, ash trays, seatbelt retractor covers, speaker grills, armrests, switch panels and handles Seatbelt & Restraints 16 Seats The seating system contains seat tracks, seat frames, foam, trim, map pockets, restraint anchors, head restraint, and armrests. 81 Safety Equipment Seat belts, tensioners, clips, air bags and sensors assemblies HVAC 80A, B Air Conditioning System Condenser, heater, ducting, and controls, compressor

and A/C hardware.24 **ASCM UPG**  **ASCM Description**

**Group Name**  80H, J Heating System 80K, M, C Other Climate

Control **Electrical** Interior

Electrical 12F
- 13, 79 Electrical Components Wi ring and controls for interior lighting, instrumentation,

and power accessories, entertainment system. 85 Accessories

Equipment Chassis Electrical 36K Chassis Electrical ABS electrical system (wiring, sensors, processors), traction control Ex terior Electrical 14,20 Molding and Ornaments Head lamps, fog lamps, turn signals, side markers, tail

light assemblies **Final Assembly**  Interior

Chassis Powertrain Electronics Other Systems Final assembly of vehicle components is represented at the level of five major vehicle subsystems under which components are grouped