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
AGENDA ITEM #1
Overview of MY 2017-2025
Light Duty Vehicle GHG rule
www.autosteel.org 3
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
AGENDA ITEM #2
Agency mass-reduction studies
www.autosteel.org 9
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 1Completed 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 1Agency 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 1AGENDA ITEM #3
EDAG presentation on EPA Study
www.autosteel.org 1Full Vehicle Lightweight Designing Based on CAE Techniques
Javier Rodríguez
EDAG Inc.
www.autosteel.orgPresentation 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.orgMass-Reduction Results:
Net Incremental Direct Manufacturing Cost Impact by Vehicle System
www.autosteel.org 172. 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.org2. 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.org2. Project Initiation
Baseline Model: System Weights and Materials (Cont.)
Baseline Material Map
www.autosteel.org2. 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.org2. 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.org3. 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.org3. 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.org3. 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.org4. 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.org4. 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.org4. 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.org4. 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.org4. 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.org4. 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.org4. Multidisciplinary Optimization Full Vehicle Process Overview www.autosteel.org
5. Optimized Model
BIW Weights and Materials
Optimized Gauge Map
www.autosteel.org5. Optimized Model
BIW Weights and Materials (Cont.)
Optimized Material Map
www.autosteel.org5. 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.org6. 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.org7. 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.orgPRESENTATIONS 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.orgYou can also read
