Cost Modeling as a Tool for Product Design & Materials Selection

IMVP European Cost Modeling Workshop Lisbon, Portugal May 6, 1999

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Methodological Approach to Materials Selection

Development Of Engineering And Economic Based Tools For Evaluation Of Alternatives In Advance Of Full Blown Development Technical Cost Modeling Lifecycle Cost And Emissions Tracking Decision Analysis Techniques Systems Dynamics Modeling Systems Approach to Strategic Decisionmaking Multiple Objectives Must Be Considered Simultaneously Interactive Effects Between Individual Process/Material Choices Functional Equivalence Needed for Meaningful Comparisons Synthesis Of Results Into A Description Of Materials Competitiveness

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Past & Current MIT Materials Systems Laboratory Studies

Recent Studies of Automotive Body Materials & Structures: Competitive position of aluminum unibody and spaceframe concepts Economic analysis of the Ultra Light Steel Auto Body (ULSAB) Comparison of composite RTM & SMC designs with a steel unibody Current & Planned Research Activities Analysis of magnesium casting for instrument panel beams Comparison of alternate door architectures Evaluation of composite (RP/C) materials-based lightweight designs

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Ultra Light Steel Auto Body

Economic analysis of the ULSAB design Comparison with a generic year 2000 vehicle Explicit consideration of innovative technologies and materials Tailored blanking Tubular hydroforming Hydro-mechanical sheet forming Laser welding in assembly High strength steels Steel sandwich materials

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

ULSAB Cost Distribution

ULSAB Cost = $947

Hydroformed $41 Assembly $281

Stampings $305

Material $353

Other $23 Overhead $27 Tooling $51 Energy $6 Equipment $88

Tailored Blanks $279

Purchased $41

Labor $36

Breakdown by Process Step

Cost Breakdown for Stamping & Tailored Blanks

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

ULSAB Investment Distribution

160 Investment ($millions) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
Blanking Tools Equipment Building 4.4 10.1 1.2 Welding 0.0 37.2 5.9 Stamping 37.1 102.9 6.2 Hydroforming 1.3 16.4 0.5 Assembly 19.0 40.5 31.3

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

ULSAB Cost Sensitivity

$1,050
60%

$1,000 $950

$50/hr

15%

$0.85/kg

50 mm/s

60 sec $9 million 20 sec $5 million

150 mm/s

$900
40%

8%

$0.69/kg Baseline ULSAB Cost $947

$850
$25/hr

$800

Trim Scrap

Interest Rate Weld Speed Wage Material Price Hydroform

Materials Systems Laboratory

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

ULSAB Cost Comparison with Year 2000 Structure

Material Purchased Parts Stampings Hydroforming Assembly TOTAL

ULSAB vol = 225K $374 $41 $223 $19 $281 $947

Y2000 vol = 225K $328 $41 $282 $0 $328 $979

ULSAB Y2000 vol = 100K vol = 100K $374 $328 $41 $297 $24 $330 $1066 $41 $398 $0 $379 $1137

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Major Conclusions of ULSAB Study

Slight savings in parts fabrication cost mainly due to parts consolidation Labor savings due to fewer press shop workers Equipment cost savings due to fewer press lines Tooling cost savings due to few major die sets Cost savings in assembly despite the use of exotic methods achieved through reduced assembly requirements Fewer spot welds required Elaborate laser welding stations needed Slight cost premium for materials despite weight savings Weight savings of 47 kg Extensive us of higher priced materials such as high strength steel and steel laminates

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Case Study: Composite Intensive Vehicle

Composites Vehicle Design Ford Composite Intensive Vehicle (CIV) Complete Body in White : 8 pieces, plus steel inserts BIW Weight : approx. 240 kg Baseline design uses glass reinforced composites produced by RTM Alternate solutions possible using carbon fiber or SMC Steel Comparator Honda Odyssey minivan Complete Body in White : 148 pieces BIW Weight : approx. 370 kg

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

RTM Cost Modeling Assumptions

Bodyside Resin wt% Fiber wt% Foam wt% Cycle Time (s) Core Mold Core Cure RTM # Cores # Preforms 35% 35% 20% Floorpan 35% 40% 15% Front End 35% 35% 20% Roof 40% 45% 0% Cross Mbr 40% 25% 25%

618 1440 265 1 2

~540 720 278 4 5

~525 720 252 2 2

0 0 267 0 1

542 720 248 1 1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

RTM Cost Modeling Assumptions Contd.

Materials Prices: Resin (Vinyl Ester) Filler (Calcium Carbonate) Reinforcement: Glass Fiber CSM Carbon Fiber Carbon / Glass Blend Catalyst Foam Core (Polyurethane) $2.60 / kg $0.13 / kg $2.00 / kg $11.00 / kg $6.50 / kg $3.24 / kg $2.54 / kg

Foam Core Molding, Thermoforming and RTM Tool Material: Steel RTM Flow: Rectilinear, Constant Pressure 32 Steel Inserts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Key Carbon Fiber Design Assumptions for CIV

Use simple beam loading equations to estimate the equivalent thickness of carbon fiber part compared its glass fiber equivalent Ratio of moduli determines the thickness of the carbon fiber part Elastic Modulus (Msi): E glass fiber : 10.5 Carbon fiber : 34 Carbon / Glass : 22.25 Part thickness for glass fiber component : 3 mm Results Part thickness: Carbon fiber : 2.03 mm Carbon / Glass : 2.3 mm Relative Weight assuming calculated thicknesses (Glass fiber = 1.0) Carbon fiber : 46% Carbon / Glass : 65%

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Key SMC Design Assumptions for CIV

SMC part thickness : 4 mm Reinforcing rib structure placed every 150 mm Reinforcing rib dimensions Length = 150 mm Height and Width are dependent on part geometry Foam cores assumed in parts where crush resistance is necessary Front End rails Floorpan SMC part is composed of two halves forming a closed section
Rib

Rib Pattern Part Cross-Section

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

SMC Cost Modeling Assumptions

Material: Vinyl Ester / Glass Fiber SMC @ $1.90 / kg Tool: single cavity, single action steel tooling plus backup Press Cost Large: $2.5 MM Small: $0.75 MM Molding Cycle Time Large: 120 sec Small: 90 sec 2 Workers per Press 32 Steel Inserts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Comparison of Part Weights (including CIV inserts)

Carbon Fiber Carbon/Glass Glass Fiber SMC Steel 0 100 200 Weight (Kg) Cross Member 300
172 193.6 241.3 286.2 367.9

400

Bodyside

Floorpan

Front End

Roof

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Results: Total Manufacturing and Assembly Cost

$3,000
Steel RTM Glass RTM Carb

$2,500

$2,000
SMC-Steel Breakeven Point: 30,000 vehicles/yr

RTM Ca/Gl SMC

$1,500

RTM Glass-Steel Breakeven Point: 35,000 vehicles/yr

$1,000 10
(Composites Wage: $25/hr)

20 30 40 50 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)

60

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

BIW Cost Breakdown at 35,000 parts/year

$2,000 Other Fixed Tooling Equipment Energy Labor Materials

$1,500

$1,000

$500

$0

Steel

RTM

SMC

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Manufacturing Cost Breakdown: Glass vs Carbon Fiber

$1,800 Other Fixed Tooling Equipment Energy Labor Materials

$1,200

$600

$0

Glass

Carbon

Car/Gla

(Volume = 35,000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

SMC Sensitivity to Varying Scrap Rates

$2,800
SMC 30% Breakeven Point: 18,000

Steel RTM SMC 5%

$2,400

SMC 15% Breakeven Point: 25,000

$2,000

SMC 15% SMC 30%

$1,600

SMC 5% Breakeven Point: 30,000

$1,200 10

20 30 40 50 60 70 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)

80

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Individual Sub-Systems: Roof

$200 $180 $160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 5 20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140
Annual Production Volume (x 1000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Steel: 9 parts RTM: 2 Parts SMC: 1 Part

Steel RTM SMC 5% SMC 30%

Materials Systems Laboratory

Cost Breakdown: Roof

$160 $140 $120 $100 $80 $60 $40 $20 $0 Steel RTM SMC Other Fixed Tooling Machine Energy Labor Material

(Volume = 35,000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Individual Subsystems: Bodyside

$1,000
Steel

$900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 5 20 35 50 65

Steel: 37 parts RTM: 2 parts + 12 inserts SMC: 4 parts + 12 inserts

RTM SMC 5% SMC 30%

80

95

110 125 140

Annual Production Volume (x 1000)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Cost Breakdown: Bodyside

$800 Other Fixed Tooling Machine Energy Labor Material

$600

$400

$200

$0

Steel

RTM

SMC

(Volume = 35,000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Individual Subsystems: Floorpan/Cross Member

$800
Steel: 57 parts RTM: 2 parts + 20 inserts SMC: 9 parts + 20 inserts
Steel RTM SMC 5% SMC 30%

$700

$600

$500

$400

20

35

50

65

80

95

110 125 140

Annual Production Volume (x 1000)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Cost Breakdown: Floorpan / Cross Member

$800 Other Fixed Tooling Machine Energy Labor Material

$600

$400

$200

$0

Steel

RTM

SMC

(Volume = 35,000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Individual Subsystems: Front End

$500
Steel: 38 parts RTM: 2 parts SMC: 4 parts
Steel RTM SMC 5% SMC 30%

$400

$300

$200

$100

20

35

50

65

80

95

110 125 140

Annual Production Volume (x 1000)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Cost Breakdown: Front End

$400 Other Fixed Tooling Machine Energy Labor Material

$300

$200

$100

$0

Steel

RTM

SMC

(Volume = 35,000)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Hybrid Vehicle Scenarios

$2,000 $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000
Hybrid Vehicle Bodyside: SMC (5-30% Scrap) Floorpan/Cross Member: RTM Front End: RTM Roof: Steel

Steel Hybrid 5% Hybrid 30% RTM SMC

20 35 50 65 80 95 110 125 140 Annual Production Volume (x 1000)

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Conclusions
Total cost of composites BIW is competitive with steel at low production volumes (< 40,000 per year) Carbon Fiber Use of carbon fiber significantly reduces BIW weight Material price for carbon fiber is too high to justify use in BIW applications SMC SMC design requires reinforcing ribs and box sections, which increase weight, tooling costs and assembly costs SMC can be competitive with RTM BIW, given design assumptions Subsystems Parts consolidation is a significant advantage for composites Roof: low parts consolidation, no crossover with steel Floorpan/Cross Member: high parts consolidation, > 50,000 crossover Designs must minimize material waste Bodyside: significant consolidation, high material costs => low crossover Hybrid vehicles can potentially become competitive with steel at high production volumes
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts
Materials Systems Laboratory

Case Study: Competing Door Designs

Objectives Understand the effects of material choices on production costs System costs comparison Approach Car door as unit of analysis Comparison of magnesium car door design with 3 structural alternatives: Conventional steel door (Base Case) Steel door with tailor-welded blank inner Composite intensive door

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Door with Magnesium Frame and Aluminum Outer

"Magnesium Door" (Door 4): 1 Door Frame - Magnesium 2 Door Outer - Aluminum 3 Nut Weld M8 Square (4x) 1

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Conventional Steel Door (Base Case)

Conventional Steel Door (Door 1): 1 Door Inner - Steel 2 Door Outer - Steel 3 Reinforcement Panel at Hinge - Steel 4 Reinforcement Panel at Latch - Steel 5 Reinforcement Panel at Waist - Steel 6 Intrusion Beam - High Strength Steel 7 Front Door Check (2x) 8 Nut Weld M8 Square (4x)

4 5

3 7+8

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Steel Door with Tailor Welded Inner Panel

TWB Steel Door (Door 2): 1 Door Inner - Steel (TWB) 2 Door Outer - Steel 3 Reinforcement Panel at Latch - Steel 4 Reinforcement Panel at Waist - Steel 5 Intrusion Beam - High Strength Steel 6 Front Door Check (2x) 7 Nut Weld M8 Square (4x)

3 4

6+7

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Composite Intensive Door

All Composites Door (Door3): 1 Door Frame (1) - SMC 2 Door Frame (2) - SMC 3 Energy Manager - Twintex 4 Outer Panel - SMC 5 Front Door Check (2x) 6 Nut Weld M8 Square (4x)

3 4

5+6

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Comparison of Door Weights

40
34.78 33.5 31.56

Door Weight (kg)

30

28.16

Parts Subass'y Paint Trim

20

10

Magnesium Tailor Blank Steel Conventional Steel Composite

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Door Cost Distribution by Process Step (prod. vol = 300K)

With Trim
$250 $200 Door Cost ($) $150 $100 $50 $0
k e el sit an ium Ste Bl po es l gn na ed om r o C Ma ilo nti Ta ve on C

Without Trim
$100

Door Cost ($)

Trim Painting Subassembly Parts

$80

$60

$40

$20

l k e m ee sit lan siu St po ne al dB om re ag ion C t M ilo en Ta nv Co

$0

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Influence of Production Volume on Door Costs

$100 Magnesium $80 Door Cost ($) Steel Tailored Blank $60 Composite

$40

$20

50 100 150 Production Volume (x 1000)

200

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Composite Vehicle Concept

Comparison of three innovative designs of alternative materials prototypes Steel based structure Hybrid solution: composite front block Hybrid solution: extruded front block

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Composite Vehicle - Design Concept

Steel Solution Hybrid with Hybrid with Composite Front Aluminum Front Block Block SMC composite Aluminum extruded parts and sheets SMC composite Aluminum extruded parts and sheets SMC composite SMC composite SRIM composite SRIM composite Aluminum sheets Aluminum sheets

Front Panel

Steel

Front Structure

Steel

Firewall Floors Roof panel, Center Pillars & Quarter pillars Superstructure Engine subframe

Sandwich Steel Sandwich Steel Steel

Steel Steel

Aluminum extruded parts Steel

Aluminum extruded parts Steel

Materials Systems Laboratory

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Hybrid Design Use Multiple Materials/Processes

Superstructure made of aluminum sections Aluminum extrusions for body panels and crossmembers Two cast nodes : front pillars/cant rail nodes Aluminum sheet metal for : center pillars, side panels, rear skirt and roof panel Aluminum front structure aluminum extruded sections Composite front structure 9 SMC parts Composite floor 2 SRIM parts 2 SMC parts

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Multiple Assembly Methods Required

Adheive Bonding general applicability to all materials pretreatment may be required for aluminum & composites uniformity versus welding spots Welding standard spot welding where possible seam welding (TIG & MIG) of aluminum and steel sections Mechanical fasteners bonding and clinching for large thickness

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory

Cost Modeling Status for Composite Vehicle

Model Structure complete complete complete in progress Validation Comments

Stamping Extrusion SMC SRIM

need Al data work on sandwich materials data updates need more info on bending data updates to be done adaptation of existing RTM model

Spot weld

complete

complete complete add'l data need data

more info on fixturing more info on fixturing data for specific adhesives

Seam weld complete Adhesive complete

Mechanical in progress fastening

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts

Materials Systems Laboratory