MY2017-2025 GHG Standard for Light Duty Vehicles Mass Reduction - Hugh Harris Environmental Protection Agency
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MY2017-2025 GHG Standard for Light Duty Vehicles Mass Reduction Hugh Harris Environmental Protection Agency www.autosteel.org
Outline 1) Overview of MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG rule and Mid-Term Evaluation 2) Agency vehicle mass-reduction studies 3) EDAG presentation on the 2012 EPA full vehicle mass reduction project – 2010 Toyota Venza www.autosteel.org 2
EPA/NHTSA Light Duty GHG Rulemaking 2017-2025 • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) worked together to develop a National Program of harmonized regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. • Final Rulemaking to Establish 2017 and Later Model Years Light- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards are in effect for 2017-2021. • A technical assessment is required to continue or modify the standards for 2022-2025 vehicles. www.autosteel.org 4
EPA/NHTSA Light Duty GHG Rulemaking 2017-2025 LD GHG Footprint Curve – Cars Fuel Economy Technologies CAFÉ Fuel Economy Target (mpg) -Improvements to gasoline engines -Advanced transmissions -Advanced diesel engines d CAFÉ Fuel Economy Target (mpg) -Mass Reduction Mid Term Evaluation (Review -Electrification d Stds for 2022-2025) -Low rolling resistance tires d - Increased aerodynamics d Other -Averaging across product line -Credits for AC -Credits for off cycle www.autosteel.org
Rulemaking technology assumptions • A wide range of technologies exist that can be used to reduce GHG/improve fuel economy. – i.e. Advanced gasoline engines and transmissions, vehicle mass reduction, hybridization… The standards are performance standards, not technology mandates. Manufacturers can choose any technologies to meet the standards. o The agencies simply project possible paths toward compliance. • The EPA projects that most manufacturers could comply in 2025 by producing an overall fleet with: – 8% mass reduction compared to model year 2008 – 66% advanced gasoline and diesel vehicles – 26% mild hybrids – 5% strong hybrids – 3% plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and all electric vehicles www.autosteel.org 6
Mid-Term Evaluation 2017 2021 2022 2025 Final unless changed by rulemaking 2017-2021 2022-2025 Final Augural Joint Technical + + Assessment Report (draft by November 15, 2017) www.autosteel.org 7
“No Later Than” Timeline for 2022-2025 Mid-Term Evaluation 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 NHTSA Final Action coordinated FRM with EPA Final Action (NHTSA rulemaking) No later than date Either a NHTSA Technical Assessment Report Final Rule w/ EPA EPA/NHTSA/CARB Decision not to Key time frame to prepare underlying reopen technical work for the Mid-Term OR Evaluation Joint EPA/NHTSA Rule to alter standards www.autosteel.org 8
Whole-Vehicle Approach to Mass Reduction • The Agencies believe the full potential of mass reduction will not be achieved with a focus only on individual parts • OEMs will need to look at every system for opportunities and look at vehicle “holistically” • Mass decompounding of engine, transmission, driveline, suspension, brakes, wheels…… www.autosteel.org 1
Completed holistic vehicle studies • 2010: CARB/Lotus Engineering initial paper study on Toyota Venza (Phase 1) – Low development (20%) vehicle – High development (>30%) concept paper – Hybrid powertrain study • 2012: EPA/FEV (Phase 2) 2010 Midsize CUV low development (~20%) – Investigation of current mass reduction technologies – Adding vehicle crash analysis for feasibility (BIW and closure) – Additional CAE analysis to validate NVH, durability, stiffness, driveability, etc. – More rigorous costing methodology – consistent with engine costing • 2012: NHTSA/EDAG 20%+ MR study on Honda Accord – Similar goals in mind – Dynamic (ADAMS model) analyses • 2012: CARB (Phase 2) 2009 Midsize CUV high development vehicle (>30%) – Included Body in White and Closures only – Longer time frame and advanced techniques – Crash analysis and cost analysis included ** All Studies underwent rigorous peer reviews www.autosteel.org 1
Agency Holistic Vehicle Studies CARB - 2010 CARB/Lotus Engineering Lotus Engineering, Toyota Venza Toyota Venza (Phase 1) 3 reports in one Low Dev High Dev Hybrid PT 20% MR >30% MR EPA/FEV released study on the 2010 Venza low development vehicle (phase 2) – Full vehicle NHTSA/EDAG released mass reduction on Honda Accord - EPA – 2012 CARB – 2012 NHTSA – 2012 Full vehicle/Glider Toyota Venza Toyota Venza Honda Accord (FEV/EDAG) (Lotus) (EDAG) CARB continued study of Venza high development vehicle (Phase 2) – BIW only EPA – 2011-2014 All reports available online Light Duty Truck (FEV/EDAG) EPA Truck study in progress www.autosteel.org 1
AGENDA ITEM #3 EDAG presentation on EPA Study www.autosteel.org 1
Full Vehicle Lightweight Designing Based on CAE Techniques Javier Rodríguez EDAG Inc. www.autosteel.org
Presentation Outline 1. Project Scope • Mass reduction feasibility study 2. Project Initiation • Establishment of the Baseline 3. Collaborative Optimization • Collaboration Process Integration into the Optimization 4. Multidisciplinary Optimization • Definition 5. Optimized Model • Output 6. Methodology for the Study Work • Output 7. References www.autosteel.org
• Same vehicle performance and func onality including 1. Project Details safety Mass Reduction Feasibility • All recommended technologies to be suitable for 200,000 annual produc on, 1 Million vehicles over 5 years • Baseline Vehicle 2011 Toyota Venza EPA • Only technologies and techniques currently feasible for manufacturability were considered • Op ons had to be cost effec ve for a MY 2017 high volume produc on vehicle • The vehicle NVH modal characteris cs and crash/safety performance had to be maintained • The total cost impact needed to be minimal The weight reduction and cost effects [4] of multiple lightweight designs were analyzed and evaluated together using advanced optimization software and engineering tools. This presentation highlights the processes used in the evaluation of full vehicle weight savings opportunities using advanced cooperative optimization computer- aided engineering (CAE) tools www.autosteel.org
Mass-Reduction Results: Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost Impact by Vehicle System www.autosteel.org 17
2. Project Initiation Establishment of the Baseline Vehicle level CAE models for noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) and crash were built based on physical NVH and regulatory crash testing The CAE load cases and performance criteria included: – Structural strength (torsion, bending, and natural frequencies) – Regulatory crash requirements (flat frontal impact FMVSS208/US NCAP, 40% offset frontal Euro NCAP; side impact FMVSS214; rear impact FMVSS301; and roof crush resistance FMVSS216A/IIHS) – Durability and Fatigue – Vehicle Performance – Should (predictive) costs for every option and variation [4] The FEA model and simulation results of the baseline were correlated with physical testing www.autosteel.org
2. Project Initiation Establishment of the Baseline, Inputs, outputs & Tools www.autosteel.org
2. Project Initiation Creation of the Baseline for the Optimization Process www.autosteel.org
2. Project Initiation Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials Baseline Gauge Map www.autosteel.org
2. Project Initiation Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials (Cont.) Baseline Material Map www.autosteel.org
2. Project Initiation Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials (Cont.) Baseline System Sub-system System-Mass (Kg) Door Frt 53.2 Door Rr 42.4 Hood 17.8 Closures Tailgate 15 Fenders 6.8 Sub-Total 135.2 Underbody Assembly 40.2 Front Struture 42 Roof Assembly 31.3 BIW Bodyside Assembly 161.9 Ladder Assembly 102.6 Sub-Total 378 Radiator Vertical Support 0.7 Compartment Extra 4.4 BIW Extra Shock Tower Xmbr Plates 3.1 Sub-Total 8.2 Bumper Frt 5.1 Bumpers Bumper Rr 2.4 Sub-Total 7.5 Baseline Sub-Systems Weights Total Weight 528.9 www.autosteel.org
2. Project Initiation Baseline Model: Optimization Process Once the FEA model was created, EDAG built the baseline for the Inputs multidisciplinary optimization BIW Analysis (MDO) model Body Structure and Closures Design Space The MDO is the tool used to Closures Matrix investigate weight Analysis optimization opportunities Variables Powertrain that will also meet Analysis Requirements Full Vehicle Analysis and Costs performance and cost criteria Collabora ve Variables Op miza on Interior Requirements Analysis Costs Variables Chassis Requirements Analysis Costs www.autosteel.org
3. Collaborative Optimization Collaborative Optimization Process Inputs •FSV Engineering Report EDAG •EDAG Light Vehicle Exper se •LWSSFT Fuel Tank BIW Analysis • Advanced Steel Bumper Body Structure and Closures Design Space • Lotus Report Closures Matrix External •Tier 1 supplier base Informa on •Misc. Lightweight cars Analysis •Audi Int. Lightweight Body Variables Powertrain Full Vehicle Requirements FEV Analysis Costs Analysis and Exper se Collabora ve Variables Op miza on Interior Requirements Analysis Costs External Informa on Variables Chassis Requirements Analysis Costs www.autosteel.org
3. Collaborative Optimization Collaborative Optimization Process Inputs BIW Analysis Body Structure and Closures Design Space Closures Matrix Analysis Variables Possible Powertrain Full Vehicle Solu ons Requirements Analysis Costs Analysis and Plot with: Collabora ve Opportunity Variables Op miza on versus Costs Interior Requirements Analysis and Weight Costs Variables Chassis Requirements Analysis Costs www.autosteel.org
3. Collaborative Optimization Collaborative Optimization Process Inputs BIW Analysis Body Structure and Closures Design Space Closures Matrix Analysis Variables Possible Powertrain Full Vehicle Solu ons Requirements Analysis Costs Analysis and Plot with: Collabora ve Opportunity Variables Op miza on versus Costs Interior Requirements Analysis and Weight Costs Variables Chassis Requirements Analysis Collabora ve Op miza on where we decomposed the design Costs concept process into more manageable pieces FEA/Should Costs Analysis confirm the overall performance www.autosteel.org
4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Overview Design Structural Design Objec ve Output Variables Varia ons Responses and Constraints Matrix 0 •Overall Vehicle Weight Full Vehicle Objec ves Analysis and (Weight Collabora ve Proper es Reduc on) Matrix 1 Linear Op miza on • Material Thickness (S ffness) • Material Subs tu on Op mum • Joining Technologies and Non- Solu ons • Tailor Blank Technology linear (Crash) Matrix 2 Constraints • Structure Redesign • Shape Changes (Costs) • Future Manufacturing Shape Technologies • Alterna ve Structure Concepts www.autosteel.org
4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Design Variables The model consisted of 484 parts, seven (7) load cases (Linear and Non- linear) and one (1) should cost calculation The design variables included 242 continuous variables for part thickness and 242 discrete variables for material grades, assigned to the identified parts To reduce the number of variables: – Load path analysis for each load case was conducted on the baseline model to identify the necessary parts based on the criteria of higher cross-section forces – The gauge and grade variables of the right hand side BIW parts were assigned as dependent variables to that of the left hand side parts Minimum and maximum limits for each gauge variable were defined based on manufacturing feasibility and tooling impact Design Variables Structural Varia ons Design Responses Objec ve and Constraints Output Matrix 0 •Overall Vehicle Weight Objec ves (Weight Proper es Reduc on) Matrix 1 Linear • Material Thickness (S ffness) • Material Subs tu on Op mum • Joining Technologies and Non- Solu ons • Tailor Blank Technology linear (Crash) Matrix 2 Constraints • Structure Redesign • Shape Changes (Costs) • Future Manufacturing Shape Technologies • Alterna ve Structure Concepts www.autosteel.org
4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Structural Variations Based on EDAG expertise and input from other companies, including automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers, a design space matrix was generated with possible structural variations including engineering costs estimates Inputs •FSV Engineering Report EDAG •EDAG Light Vehicle Exper se •LWSSFT Fuel Tank BIW Analysis • Advanced Steel Bumper Body Structure and Closures Design Space • Lotus Report Closures Matrix External •Tier 1 supplier base Informa on •Misc. Lightweight cars Analysis •Audi Int. Lightweight Body Variables Powertrain Full Vehicle Requirements Analysis Costs Analysis and Any idea included in the design matrix had to be feasible* for the vehicle and ve Collabora Variables Op miza on Interior Design Structural Design Objec ve Output capable of being in production for 2017 (EPA) Requirements Variables Varia ons Responses and Constraints Analysis Costs Matrix 0 •Overall Vehicle Weight Objec ves (Weight Proper es Reduc on) Variables Matrix 1 Linear *Feasible idea = CurrentlyChassis in production in other Requirements vehicles • Material Thickness (S ffness) • Material Subs tu on Op mum • Joining Technologies and Non- Solu ons • Tailor Blank Technology linear (Crash) Analysis Matrix 2 Constraints • Structure Redesign • Shape Changes (Costs) Shape Costs • Future Manufacturing Technologies • Alterna ve Structure Concepts www.autosteel.org
4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Design Responses Several constraints and responses measured from different load cases were considered in the optimization model – Body in White (BIW) natural frequencies and specific dynamic stiffness – Left and right vertical displacements for bending and torsion stiffness – Pulse, foot intrusion, left, center and right toe pan intrusions for flat frontal impact – Pulse, foot intrusion, left, center and right toe pan intrusions for offset frontal impact – B-Pillar to seat centerline intrusion gap for side impact – Rear zone deformations for rear impact – Roof rail resistance force for roof crush – BIW and Closures cost (using current mat database costs) Design Structural Design Objec ve Output – Fatigue and components life (as a design confirmation) Variables Varia ons Responses and Constraints Matrix 0 •Overall Vehicle – Vehicle Performance (Acceleration, R&H, etc.) Weight Objec ves (Weight Proper es Reduc on) Matrix 1 Linear • Material Thickness (S ffness) • Material Subs tu on Op mum • Joining Technologies and Non- Solu ons • Tailor Blank Technology linear (Crash) Matrix 2 Constraints • Structure Redesign • Shape Changes (Costs) • Future Manufacturing Shape Technologies • Alterna ve Structure Concepts www.autosteel.org
4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Objectives and Constrains The objective of the optimization was to minimize the total mass of the BIW and Closures Model performance was measured as a normalized value of the design responses Baseline model performance needed to be maintained or improved for the solution to be to considered viable BIW material cost constraints were also considered a critical parameter that also had to be satisfied in order to deliver viable results Design Structural Design Objec ve Output Variables Varia ons Responses and Constraints Matrix 0 •Overall Vehicle Weight Objec ves (Weight Proper es Reduc on) Matrix 1 Linear • Material Thickness (S ffness) • Material Subs tu on Op mum • Joining Technologies and Non- Solu ons • Tailor Blank Technology linear (Crash) Matrix 2 Constraints • Structure Redesign • Shape Changes (Costs) • Future Manufacturing Shape Technologies • Alterna ve Structure Concepts www.autosteel.org
4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Optimization Engine and Outputs A hybrid and adaptive algorithm called SHERPA (Heeds MDO) was chosen as the optimization method. EDAG has also used this method in several previous studies Initially the optimization required more than 400 design evaluations. Each feasible design was analyzed by the engineering team and “human” input was always part of optimization process. Design Structural Design Objec ve Output Variables Varia ons Responses and Constraints Matrix 0 •Overall Vehicle Weight Objec ves (Weight Proper es Reduc on) Matrix 1 Linear • Material Thickness (S ffness) • Material Subs tu on Op mum • Joining Technologies and Non- Solu ons • Tailor Blank Technology linear (Crash) Matrix 2 Constraints • Structure Redesign • Shape Changes (Costs) • Future Manufacturing Shape Technologies • Alterna ve Structure Concepts www.autosteel.org
4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Full Vehicle Process Overview www.autosteel.org
5. Optimized Model BIW Weights and Materials Optimized Gauge Map www.autosteel.org
5. Optimized Model BIW Weights and Materials (Cont.) Optimized Material Map www.autosteel.org
5. Optimized Model BIW Weights and Materials (Cont.) Baseline Weight Reduced System Sub-system System-Mass (Kg) System-Mass (Kg) Door Frt 53.2 53.2 Door Rr 42.4 42.4 Hood 17.8 10.1 Closures Tailgate 15 7.7 Fenders 6.8 4.9 Sub-Total 135.2 118.3 Underbody Assembly 40.2 32.0 Front Struture 42.0 36.2 Roof Assembly 31.3 24.1 BIW Bodyside Assembly 161.9 141.9 Ladder Assembly 102.6 90.2 Sub-Total 378 324.4 Radiator Vertical Support 0.7 0.7 Compartment Extra 4.4 3.2 BIW Extra Shock Tower Xmbr Plates 3.1 4.4 Sub-Total 8.2 8.3 Bumper Frt 5.1 4.7 Bumpers Bumper Rr 2.4 2.4 Sub-Total 7.5 7.1 Optimized Sub-Systems Weights Total Weight 528.9 458.1 www.autosteel.org
6. Methodology for the Study Work For further information on results, please go to the technical papers [1,2,3] These studies are an evolutionary implementation of advanced optimization technologies including multidisciplinary concept design and collaborative optimization. The Advanced High Strength Steel (AHSS) materials and manufacturing technologies proposed in the study are currently used in the automotive industry. The demonstrated mass reduction opportunities in the BIW utilizes existing technologies and could be fully developed within the normal ‘product design cycle’ using the current ‘design and development’ methods prevalent to the automotive industry. www.autosteel.org
7. References [1] Regulations & Standards: Light-Duty http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-light-duty.htm [2] FEV, “Light-Duty Vehicle Mass-Reduction and Cost Analysis – Midsize Crossover Utility Vehicle “. July 2012, EPA Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 [2] Joint Technical Support Document EPA-420-R-10-901, April 2012 http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10901.pdf [3] Final Rulemaking: Model Year 2012-2016 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-light-duty.htm#finalR [4] ULSAB-AVC Cost Models http://www.worldautosteel.org/projects/cost-models/ Contact Information: Hugh Harris Javier Rodriguez EPA EDAG Inc. Senior Engineer Director Vehicle Integration Tel + 1 734 214 4705 Tel +1 248 577 4036 Harris.hugh@EPA.gov javier.rodriguez@edag-us.com www.autosteel.org
PRESENTATIONS WILL BE AVAILABLE MAY 3 Use your web-enabled device to download the presentations from today’s event Great Designs in Steel is Sponsored by: www.autosteel.org
You can also read