Aluminum-Intensive Vehicles: Fuel Efficient, Safe and Affordable

Randall Scheps

Aluminum Association’s Auto and Light Truck Group

Aluminum-Intensive Vehicles: Fuel Efficient, Safe and Affordable

Topics:

Reducing CO2 Emissions

Performance Advantages

Impact On Fuel Efficiency

Building Safer Vehicles

1

Aluminum’s Performance Advantages

Reduced Emissions

Mass Reduction

Enhanced Performance

Improved Safety

Better Fuel Economy

Infinitely Recyclable

2

Automotive Aluminum Is Everywhere

3

Aluminum growth has risen for nearly four decades.

Average vehicle today contains over 320 pounds of aluminum.

Global MegatrendsStock of Light -Duty Vehicles

Liquid Fossil Fuel Consumption

Transport is 2/3 of the growth

1 billion global LV population by 2020

Emerging markets growth

Urbanization

Growing fuel consumption

CO2 concern

Efficiency of transport must improve

4

Lightweighting With Aluminum Is Part Of Solution

= Billions of Metric Tons

10% reduction possible

25.3

2.4

22.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Savings in

Operation

Aluminum

Production (Net)

Net Savings per

kg of aluminum

kg

of

CO

2 p

er

kg

of

alu

min

umAluminum saves CO2 net of its

production energy vs. steel

Huge CO2 and fuel reduction potential

Highly complimentary with advanced drivetrains

Improves safety

Cost effective

5

5-7% Fuel Savings For 10% Weight Reduction

Ricardo Inc. Study Objectives:

• Quantify impact of vehicle weight reduction(5%, 10%, 20%)

o Fuel economy

o Performance

• Quantify impact of weight reduction with engine downsizing

o Maintain vehicle performance level

• Evaluate weight reduction with different engine types

o Gasoline

o Diesel

Source:

6

• From five vehicle classes

o Representative range of vehicle weights and engines

o Passenger and light-duty truck

• Vehicle class / comparator vehicle

Small Car/Mini Cooper Mid-Size Car/Ford Fusion Small SUV/Saturn Vue

Truck/Toyota Tundra Large SUV/Ford Explorer

Vehicle Selection

7

• Physics-based for each configuration

o Vehicle

o Engine

o Driving schedule

• Simulates accelerator and/or braking to achieve driving schedule

• Runs on a millisecond-by-millisecond basis

• Simulates speed and fuel usage

• Industry standard drive cycles (EPA & ECE)

Simulation Model

8

Vehicle Performance Matching

• Matched Wide Open Throttle (WOT) performance

• All fuel economy simulations were performed at ETW

• Accounted for additional cargo weight

• Engines were downsized to give equivalent performance

9

Model Validation

VEHICLE

Simulation Roadload Force

Simulated Fuel Economy vs. Comparator (% diff)

Maximum Variation vs. Comparator

EPA City EPA Highway Combined

Small Car 0.2% 2.5% -0.6% 1.3%

Mid-Size Car 2.5% 0.2% -1.4% -0.4%

Small SUV 1.1% 1.8% -4.4% -0.4%

Large SUV 1.7% 5.9% -1.1% 3.5%

Truck -1.3% 2.2% -1.9% 0.7%

• Simulation results compared to published data for comparator vehicle

o No attempt to “calibrate” models

10

Equivalent Performance With Less Horsepower

11

Mid-Size Car 3.0L-4V Gas Engine with Variable Intake Cam Timing

Mid-Size Car 3.0L-4V Gas Engine with Variable Intake Cam Timing

20% Weight Reduction Gives 14.3% MPG Improvement

12

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

0 5 10 15 20 25

% F

uel E

co

no

my Im

pro

vem

en

t

% Weight Reduction

Small Car - Resized Engine Mid Size Car - Resized Engine

Small SUV - Resized Engine Large SUV - Resized Engine

Truck - Resized Engine Small Car - Baseline Engine

Mid Size Car - Baseline Engine Small SUV - Baseline Engine

Large SUV - Baseline Engine Truck - Baseline Engine

Gasoline

AIV

AIV RESIZED

PART SUB.

Fuel Economy Universally Improved

13

Weight Saving Potential With Aluminum

14

Baseline Vehicle3500 lbs.

10% Weight Reduction3150 lbs.

20% Weight Reduction2800 lbs.

Possible Fuel Economy Savings Up To 14.3%

• Fuel economy improvement of 5-7% is expected with 10% reduction in weight

• Excellent correlation between simulation and actual vehicle

• Similar results for gasoline and diesel engine vehicles

• What about hybrids and advanced powertrains?

Source:

15

Future offers lighter,

cleaner vehicles for all

consumers.

Chevy Tahoe (Hybrid Electric)

Chevy Volt(Plug-In Hybrid)

Toyota Prius(Hybrid)

Honda FCX Clarity (Fuel Cell)

Weight And Alternative Powertrain Equation

16

More Cost Effective To Reduce Mass

17

Midsize Steel Hybrid

Midsize Steel Diesel

Midsize Aluminum Diesel

Midsize Aluminum Baseline

Midsize Aluminum Hybrid

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

0%10% 20%

30% 40% 50% 60%

Percent Increase in MPG

Co

st

pe

r 1

MP

G i

ncre

me

nt

MidsizeSteel Baseline

Maximizing Powertrains In Cost-Effective Manner

18

Key Takeaway:Aluminum Is Fuel-Efficient Solution

• Use of aluminum boosts fuel economy

o 5 % to 7% fuel saving can be realized for every 10% weight reduction

• Provides even greater benefits – including cost savings –when used as a complement to advanced powertrains

o Quicker payback period for consumer

19

Reduce Weight, Not Size

• Direct benefits:o Absorbs more energy, pound for pound, than steel

o Predictable deformation

o Not strain-rate sensitive

o Extruded structures – design flexibility

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ma

ss S

pec

ific

EA

(k

J/k

g)

Aluminum

Steel

W/t = 60...80W = widtht = wall thickness

t

W

Better crash compatibility –reduce weight, not size

20

Building Safer Vehicles With Aluminum

• Secondary benefits:o Handling (accident avoidance) advantages

o Braking distance reduction

• We believe aluminum can build a safer car than steel

Audi A8Jaguar XJ

21

• Objective of the DRI (Dynamic Research Inc.) Study:

o - Interplay of vehicle weight vs. size in occupant protection

• Methodology:

o - Real-world crash data from 3500 collisions

o - Car to SUV, SUV to SUV, and SUV to fixed obstacle

o - NCAP pulse and NASS/CDS descriptors

o - ELU (Injury Index) as proxy for occupant safety

• Scenarios:

o - 20% weight reduction – no length reduction

o - 4 inch length increase – no weight increase

Studying Affect Of Weight On Safety

22

• Adding crush space without adding weight improves ELU 27%

• Reducing weight further improves fleet safety

SUV to Car Crashes

Improving Occupant Safety

ELU Scenarios

0

20

40

60

80

100

Baseline Added Length

Constant Weight

Reduced Weight

Constant Length

ELU Other Car

Driver

85.9

63.0 61.8

28%27%

23

Net Benefit (%)

Crash

Type

Number

of Cases

Baseline

Case SUV

Reduced

Weight

Case SUV

Increased

Length

Case SUV

Reduced

Weight

Case SUV

Increased

Length

Case SUV

Rollover 175 2.23 2.48 0.53 -11.2 76.2

Hit Object 420 2.54 1.74 0.81 31.5 68.1

Hit PC 1750 1.21 2.47 1.19 -104.1 1.7

Hit LTV 1155 25.97 22.03 21.61 15.2 16.8

Subtotal 3500 31.95 28.72 24.14 10.1 24.4

In PC 1750 28.00 9.70 16.79 65.4 40.0

In LTV 1155 25.99 23.40 22.09 10.0 15.0

Subtotal 2905 53.99 33.10 38.88 38.7 28.0

Overall

Total

3500 SUV

+ 2905 OV85.94 61.82 63.02 28.1 26.7

SUV

Driver

OV

Driver

Total ELU's

20% Reduced Weight SUV and Conventional Cars

Improving Occupant Safety

24

Crush Rail:

• 56% mass savings vs. mild steel – ( 38% vs. HSS )

• Lower peak loads

• Consistent crush performance at all speeds

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 50 100 150 200 250

Crush Distance (mm)

Cru

sh L

oad

(kN

)

Aluminum Rail

Steel Rail

Aluminum Safety In Action

25

Aluminum Safety In Action

Knee Bolster:

Aluminum can play a key role in energy management in vehicle interiors

• Example:

o Extruded knee bolster consolidates three parts into one

o 48% weight reduction vs. steel

o 50th percentile male unbelted sled test passed for a N. American OEM

26

Key Takeaways: Weight Reduction Proves Beneficial To Safety

Size – not weight – is best determinant of vehicle safety

Aluminum can safely take weight out

Aluminum performs as well, if not better than steel in crash

Aluminum offers design flexibility and innovative solutions for energy management

27

North American Light Vehicle Aluminum Content

2.0% 2.1%

3.9%4.5%

5.1%

6.1%6.9%

7.8%8.7% 8.8%

9.6%10.4%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009 2010F 2015F 2020F

Aluminum Share as Percentage of Curb Weight

Auto Aluminum Use Climbs

28

Specif ic Savings

(Tons of CO2 per ton of w eight save)

28

1823

3

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Bus -

Urb

an

Bus -

Suburb

an

Tru

ck -

Weig

ht

Constr

ain

ed

Tru

ck -

Volu

me

Constr

ain

ed

Car

All Modes of Transport Benefit

To

ns C

O2

pe

r T

on

We

igh

t S

ave

d

3000-3500 lbs 3500-4500 lbs 300-500 lbsPotential Weight Savings:

IFEU Heidelberg study 2003 for EAA

**

** vs. steel29

Aluminum Potential To Be GHG-Neutral

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

600

650

700

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Mt

CO

2e

GHG Emissions

Transport Savings

Potential emissions savings from transport growing faster than emissions from aluminum production

30

Aluminum-Intensive Vehicles: Fuel Efficient, Safe and Affordable

Randall Scheps

Aluminum Association’s Auto and Light Truck Group