50 year Perspective of Automotive Engineering Body Materials and an Analysis of the Future

Jody N. Hall
Manager, Global Die Standards & Materials Applications General Motors Manufacturing Engineering

Great Designs in Steel 2008

Steel Becomes the Material of Choice for Auto Bodies

Original bodies made of wood & steel Quick to tool, easy to change Large number of skilled workers

Benz Patent Motorwagen 1886 (Replica)

1914 Dodge & Budd produce 5,000 all-steel bodies All-steel body was lighter, stronger, easier to make Most significant advantage was in painting
Dodge Brothers Touring Car 1917

Every time the price of steel goes up, Detroits auto makers moan in anguish and intensify their search for replacements
3

gas Every time the price of steel goes up, Detroits auto makers moan in anguish and intensify their search for replacements
4

Materials Causing the Biggest Stir in Body Technology

Plastics
-been getting the big play as successor to steel

Aluminum Alloys
-about as strong as steel, less than half the weight -used since birth of auto -most plentiful metal on earth

Magnesium Alloys
-even lighter than aluminum, stronger for its weight than steel -most easily machined and cast -enough in the ocean to provide 100,000,000 tons a year
5

Published October 1953

The day of the passenger car made primarily of iron and steel is on the wane! Some sources predict that by 1960 a Cadillac will weigh less than a 1953 Chevrolet and a Chevy will probably weigh about as much as a motorcycle.

Prediction 50+ Years Ago

Mg

Al Steel

Plastics

FUTURE PAST

Key Product Drivers & Resulting Vehicles

Clean Air Act Highway Safety Act Safety Focus Oil Shock Global Competition Customer Personalization

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000+

2006 introduces the 1997 Audi The C6 Z06 first Late 1970s Dodge releases 1984 Pontiac releases Corvette is released. all aluminum volume production 1953 Chevrolet Introduces the the Fiero. Small, fuel Corvette Charger XL that applies higher w/ fiberglass body. car.sports carcarbon frames The Aluminum fiber Utilizes that efficient strength improves aluminum Lightweight body steel and all usesweigh up to less than 40% of composite panels fenders, wheel houses, components that aspects of performance. resulted in a to reduce overall and comparable steel frames of an aluminum floors, weight. 285kg reduction in vehicle mass. design. frame.
8

Steel Mass Reduction

MILD STEELS CONV HSS

0%

Mass Reduction Opportunity

10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

2020

2030
9

Time

Current Body and Closure Metallic Material Content by Type for North America
Source: Ducker Worldwide 2007
Advanced HSS Conventional HSS Aluminum & Magnesium

9.5%

0.8%

12.7%
Mild Steel

Medium HSS

15.8% 6.6%

54.6%

Bake Hardenable Steel

850 Pounds

10

The Question is
Why do these materials continue to fall short of the prediction?

11

Comparison of Materials by Performance

Density Modulus Tensile Strength Elongation Corrosion Resistance

Mild Steel Aluminum Magnesium Polymers & Composites

- - - - - - - - - - BASELINE - - - - - - - - - -

+ + +

-0/KEY: 0 = equal

0 0 -/0/+
+ = better - = worse

0 -

0/+ 0/+

12

Comparison of Materials by Manufacturability

Steel Advantages: Formability Weldability Infrastructure Painted Surface Disadvantages: Castability Aluminum Advantages: Formability Castability Painted Surface Magnesium Advantages: Castability Polymer/ Composites Advantages: Low cost tooling Shorter lead time

Disadvantages: Lower formability than steel Weldability

Disadvantages: Formability Elevated temperature stamping & hemming Weldability

Disadvantages: Cycle Time Infrastructure Difficult to repair Painted Surface 13

Comparison of Materials by Other Important Characteristics

Cost
(Est. $/lb.)

Availability
(Annual Metric Ton Production)

Environment
(Primary Production Emissions reported by industry)

Mild Steel (Baseline) Aluminum (Al) Magnesium (Mg) PMC

$0.50 $1.00

110 Million 2.5 Million

easy to recycle Emissions = 2.3 2.7 kg CO2/kg easy to recycle Emissions = 13.9 15.5 kg CO2/kg easy to recycle Emissions = 18.0 24.8 kg CO2/kg difficult to recycle Emissions = 2.5 23.0 kg CO2/kg

$1.50

0.5 Million

$1.20 6.50

Unknown

14

Current Body and Closure Metallic Material Content by Type for North America
Source: Ducker Worldwide 2007
Advanced HSS Conventional HSS
9.5% 12.7%

Aluminum & Magnesium

0.8%

Mild Steel Medium HSS

15.8% 6.6% 54.6%

Bake Hardenable Steel

850 Pounds

15

Comparison of Materials by Performance

Density Mild Steel Aluminum Magnesium Modulus Tensile Strength Elongation Corrosion Resistance

- - - - - - - - - - BASELINE - - - - - - - - - -

+ + +
0

-0/0

0 0/-

0/+ 0/+ 0
16

0 -/0/+ ++

Polymers & Composites HSS/AHSS

Comparison of Materials by Manufacturability

Steel & HSS/AHSS Advantages: Formability Weldability Infrastructure Painted Surface Disadvantages: Castability Aluminum Advantages: Formability Castability Painted Surface Magnesium Advantages: Castability Polymer/ Composites Advantages: Low cost tooling Shorter lead time

Disadvantages: Lower formability than steel Weldability

Disadvantages: Formability Elevated temperature stamping & hemming Weldability

Disadvantages: Cycle Time Infrastructure Difficult to repair Painted Surface 17

Comparison of Materials by Other Important Characteristics

Cost
(Est. $/lb.)

Availability
(Annual Metric Ton Production)

Environment
(Primary Production Emissions reported by industry)

Mild Steel (Baseline) Aluminum (Al) Magnesium (Mg) PMC HSS/AHSS

$0.50 $1.00

110 Million 2.5 Million

easy to recycle Emissions = 2.3 2.7 kg CO2/kg easy to recycle Emissions = 13.9 15.5 kg CO2/kg easy to recycle Emissions = 18.0 24.8 kg CO2/kg difficult to recycle Emissions = 2.5 23.0 kg CO2/kg easy to recycle Emissions = 2.3 2.7 kg CO2/kg
18

$1.50

0.5 Million

$1.20 6.50 $0.55

Unknown Included in Mild Steel

Steel Strategy
70 Elongation (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 300
IF

Second Generation AHSS

IF- HS

Conventional HSS

L-I P AU ST .

SS

TW

IP

Mild ISO ISO BH

CM

TRI

First Generation AHSS

HSL

A DP , C P

MART

600 900 Tensile Strength (MPa)

1200

1600
19

Steel Strategy - GAP

70 Elongation (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 300
IF
IF-HS
L-I P AU ST .

Mild ISO BH

CM

TW Fu IP SS Th tur ird eO Ge ner pportu atio nity TRI P nA HS H S L DP , S CP A

MART

600 900 Tensile Strength (MPa)

1200

1600
20

Whats the same?

Other than prediction of lightweight material usage and the elimination of steel (by some) Relative amongst materials:
Cost Performance Manufacturability Availability

Fuel Cost Strategy for material implementation

21

Engineering Strategy

Materials Manufacturing

Design

22

Business Strategy

Manufacturability & Cost: material design manufacturing

Government Regulations Fuel Economy Crash Performance Emissions & Customer Requirements Cost Quality/Styling 23 Features

Steel Mass Reduction Opportunities

MILD STEELS CONV HSS

0%

Mass Reduction Opportunity

10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

With Steel Strategy & DOE Support

Without DOE Support

AHSS MASS COMPOUNDING 3rd GENERATION

FreedomCAR GOAL Technology Decision 2000 2010

1970

1980

1990

2020

2030

Time
24

Global Market
North America Europe

Well developed market developed market Well Consumer demand for large Consumer demand Asia Pacific Latin America, Africa & Middle East for a balance of vehicles utility & efficiency Relatively low fuel prices Fast growing diverse market Diverse market Relatively Infrastructure still developing Primary challenges U.S. CAFE high fuel prices New market players and emissions regulations TaxesPrimary challenges are & on poor fuel economy new fuel Lead in diesel); strict economy/emission regulations (particularlyalternative fuels, emissions particularly ethanol collision performance requirements Primary challenges CO2 commitment Primary challenge is product and Euro 5 emissions; strict collision performance requirements Opportunity for more growth cost

25

Global Transportation Growth

Source: Joe Carpenter, DOE

Vehicles per T housand P eople

800
U.S.

600
Industrialized Pacific

400
Eastern Europe

Western Europe

U.S. Historic

200
Africa China

0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
26

Mid-East Former Soviet Union Latin America Developing Asia

China, with 13 vehicles per 1000 people, is where the U.S. was in 1913 Chinas population is currently 4 times the population of the U.S.

What materials will be used to meet these demands?

27

NORTH AMERICAN LIGHT VEHICLE METALLIC MATERIAL TRENDS

Body and Closure Metallic Material Content by Type 2007
Aluminum & Advanced Magnesium HSS Con. 9.5% 0.8% HSS 12.7% Advanced HSS

2015
Aluminum & Magnesium

2.5%

Mild Steel

34.8% 54.6%
Mild Steel

29.0%

15.8% Medium HSS

6.6%

10.2%
Conventional HSS

Bake Hardenable

23.5% Bake Hardenable and Medium HSS

850 Pounds

800 Pounds with an Equal Footprint to 2007

Source: Ducker Worldwide

28

NORTH AMERICAN LIGHT VEHICLE METALLIC MATERIAL TRENDS

North American Light Vehicle Material Content Per in Pounds

1975 Mild Steel High Strength Steel Advanced HSS Other Steels Iron Aluminum Magnesium Other Metals Plastic/Composites Other Materials Total Pounds 2,180 140 -65 585 84 -120 180 546 3,900 2005 1,751 324 111 76 290 307 9 150 335 629 3,982 2007 1,748 334 149 76 284 327 9 149 340 634 4,050 2015 1,314 315 403 77 244 374 22 145 364 650 3,908* Change From 1975 to 2015 Down 866 lbs. Up 175 lbs. Up 403 lbs. Up 12 lbs. Down 341 lbs. Up 290 lbs. Up 22 lbs. Up 25 lbs. Up 184 lbs. Up 104 lbs. Up 8 lbs.
29

* Same vehicle mix and average footprint as 2007

Source: Ducker Worldwide

NORTH AMERICAN LIGHT VEHICLE METALLIC MATERIAL TRENDS

Body and Closure Metallic Material Content by Type North America
Advanced HSS Aluminum & Magnesium PHS, TWIP & Others 12.0%

Europe
Mild Steel Aluminum & Magnesium 3.0% Mild Steel & BH

2.5%

34.8%

29.0%

25.0%

10.2%
Conventional HSS

30.0% AHSS
23.5% Bake Hardenable and Medium HSS

30.0% Conventional HSS

2015
30

Why is this reasonable?

No real changes in basic trends over past 50 years Cash is King customer paying less than before & demanding more Infrastructure not ready Availability Infrastructure of metal production Global Differences in Needs
31

What could disrupt this prediction

Fuel Cost & Availability Material Cost & Availability Economic Stability Government Regulations Technological Discoveries/Advances

32

Conclusions
Always be a need/desire to push to lightweight materials for the auto industry Doesnt mean no steel Current prediction is mainly some form of steel
Best value to customer (performance/cost)

However, disruptive event(s) is as likely, or even more likely, than ever before
33