Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1-1
6.1.1.1 Introduction
The designer frequently finds opportunity to reduce the number of pieces that make up major
body assemblies. In many cases, he can assess the alternatives and combine two or three small
details, if warranted, with only minor design changes to accommodate tooling. For major
assemblies the decision can become quite complex, requiring detailed studies for upper
management deliberation.
A typical approach is to establish the design with the greatest number of pieces as a baseline and
a set of alternatives. Advantages and disadvantages of each are identified, and dollar values
assigned.
The following case study was extracted from an actual design program. It illustrates the
approach used to assess the many factors involved in the one-piece versus multi-piece options of
a major assembly, the body side. The dollar values generated are unique to the internal
circumstances; they have no quantitative significance outside of the environment in which the
study was made. They are included in this study to reflect the relative values that were assigned
to the various factors involved in the decision.
6.1.1.2 Definition
This case study assesses three design alternatives for the body side assembly: uniside, two-piece
and multi-piece. Uniside is a one-piece body side panel that includes the outer A pillar, outer
roof rail, rocker panel, outer B pillar, quarter lock pillar, and quarter panel. Two-piece
construction incorporates the same components into two major panels, the door opening panel
and quarter panels. For the multi-piece, the components listed above are separate details, welded
together to form the body side assembly. The three types of construction are shown
schematically in Figure 6.1.1.2-1.
A survey of existing cars in the early 80's (see Table 6.1.1.2-1) shows that there is no clear-cut
preference among manufacturers for any of the three alternatives.
"C' PILLAR
ROOF RAIL (QUARTER SAIL)
"A" PILLAR
QUARTER PANEL
HINGE
PILLAR "B"
PILLAR
ROCKER QUARTER
COWL SIDE LOCK PILLAR
6.1.1.3 Analysis
Relevant Factors
Many factors must be considered to determine the appropriate type of construction for a
particular vehicle. Replacing the several stampings that make up the body side assembly with
one or two major panels (uniside or two-piece) will:
Uniside B N Q
The eighteen concepts can be combined into many alternatives; three that were selected for this
study are defined in Table 6.1.1.3-2.
The cost of facilities, aids, tools, and launch are summarized in Table 6.1.1.3-3, the annual
operating costs in Table 6.1.1.3-4, and the estimated reliability, warranty, and owner loyalty
variances in Table 6.1.1.3-5.
6.1.1.4 Conclusion
In this case, two-piece construction offers a clear choice over the multi-piece alternative. The
one-time cost is $4,600,000 less than multi-piece. This advantage is partially offset by the annual
operating cost, which favors multi-piece by $300,000. Warranty and owner loyalty costs favor
two-piece over multi-piece by $2.25 per vehicle. Two-piece showed improved reliability; rejects
were lower by 4.90 per 100 vehicles.
Two-piece construction is also favored over uniside construction. Annual operating costs favor
two-piece over uniside by $12,000,000. This advantage is offset slightly during the first year of
production by $1,000,000 higher one-time costs. However, warranty and owner loyalty costs
favor uniside by $3.15 per vehicle. This per-vehicle advantage would require production
volumes of 3.5 million the first year and 3.8 million in subsequent years in order to offset the
annual operating costs. Uniside also showed better reliability; rejects were lower by 7.60 per 100
vehicles.
In the actual case, two-piece construction was chosen. It offered essentially the same design
advantages as uniside, and it was more profitable to produce than either alternative.
6.1.2.1 Introduction
This case study assesses two design alternatives for the front shock absorber tower: one-piece
and two-piece. The front shock tower is primarily a structural member that attaches the top of the
shock absorber and the upper spring seat. Its location in the vehicle imposes a number of design
criteria, beyond the obvious structural requirements. The following case study was extracted
from an actual design program. It illustrates the factors involved in the one-piece versus two-
piece options, and the impact of the decision on adjacent members.
1. Reduced stamping and assembly cost, because there are fewer pieces to handle, and
welding operations are eliminated.
2. Improved appearance, where under-hood dress-up is a priority.
3. Moisture-proof construction, because the welded joint (and consequently the need to seal
it) is eliminated.
4. Higher fatigue life expectancy
The major disadvantage of one-piece construction is the tendency to increased mass, due to the
placement of heavier metal gage in the side wall where it is not needed. In the two-piece
construction, it was determined that the top of the tower, which directly receives the suspension
loads, required 2.64 mm (0.104 in.) minimum metal thickness, while the lower stamping required
only 0.84 mm (0.033 in.). The highly loaded top structure of the one-piece tower requires a
minimum gage of 1.96 mm (0.077 in.).
The two constructions are shown in Figure 6.1.2.3-1. The one-piece construction eliminates
eighteen (18) spot welds and four (4) 25 mm (1 in.) MIG braze welds per tower. The minimum
metal thicknesses and the masses of each piece are also shown.
1.60 kg
2.64 MM (3.52 lb.)
(0.0104 in.) 4 Mig
Welds
2.59MM
(0.102 in.)
4.02 kg
(8.85 lb.)
18 Spot
Welds
0.84MM
(0.033 in.)
1.34 kg
(2.95 lb.)
1. Use 2.59 mm (0.102 in.) thick steel, and allow the metal in the radial transition area to
thin.
2. Use 1.96 mm (0.077 in.) thick steel, and adjust manufacturing operations to minimize
thinning in the critical area
3. Use a thinner material with offsetting higher strength.
The first option offered less development time and lower development cost, because it had
already been proven. However, it imposed a mass penalty of 2.16 kg (4.76 lb) per vehicle (Table
6.1.2.4-1) exclusive of spin-off effects on other components.
Bottom Member
Thickness, mm (in) ----- ----- 0.84 (0.033)
Mass, kg (lb) ----- ----- 1.34 (2.95)
Total
Thickness, mm (in) 2.59 (0.102) 1.96 (0.077) -----
Mass, kg (lb) 4.02 (8.85) 3.04 (6.70) 2.94 (6.47)
The third option, use of a higher strength material, also affects manufacturing. Tables 2.5.3.2-1,
2.5.3.2-2, 2.5.3.3-1, 2.5.3.3-2, and 2.10-1 in Section 2 indicate that higher strength is traded
off against lower ductility, which makes the part more difficult to form. Therefore materials
personnel as well as the affected manufacturing personnel should participate in the material
selection. The higher-strength steel may cost slightly more per pound, but the increase would be
offset, either partially or entirely, by the lower mass from the thinner gage of the higher-strength
steel. The other advantages of the one-piece design would be maintained.
Section 3.6 indicates that stability of the front longitudinal member is essential to the crash
energy absorption capability of the front structure. It should be noted that the shock tower
stabilizes the longitudinal member in the vertical direction, and a one-piece tower with heavier
side walls can be expected to offer more stability than a two-piece construction with thinner
walls. Thus the one-piece shock tower construction may favorably affect crash energy
management.
6.1.2.6 Summary
The overall cost and mass comparison for the two design alternatives is summarized in Table
6.1.2.6-1, which is based on design option 1 (utilizing the proven metal gage of 2.59 mm or
0.102 in).
Table 6.1.2.6-1 Cost and mass summary for one piece tower
based on design option 1 and 1986 economics
Each automotive design center has its own criteria for weighing the actual and potential
advantages and disadvantages described above. In this case, the one-piece design was selected
because the increase in mass was considered justifiable in view of the reduction in cost and the
improved appearance. Of the three available one-piece options, option 1 was selected, rather
than attempting to "fine tune" to options 2 or 3. The potentially greater mass and cost savings
were not considered to be justified in view of the development cost and time required.
6.1.3.1 Introduction
This case study assesses two design alternatives for a hood inner panel: two-piece laser-welded
blank and one-piece blank. It was extracted from an actual design program to illustrate the
factors involved in two-piece laser-welded blanks versus one-piece blank options.
The hood inner panel is a structural member that stiffens the hood assembly to reduce flutter
and give the hood a solid feel when it is raised. Design analysis and test indicated that the hood
assembly could develop the required stiffness with an inner panel made from 0.022 in. (0.56 mm)
stock. However, the application requires 72 in. (1830 mm) wide blanks, and the thinnest gauge
available in the required width when the study was begun was 0.028 in. (0.71 mm). Corrosion
protection dictates the use of two-side galvanized steel. Three options, illustrated in Figure
6.1.3.1-1, were considered:
1. Use the 0.028 in. stock at 72 in. width and accept the increased mass.
2. Cut half blanks from 48 in. (1220 mm) wide stock, which was available in the 0.022 in.
thickness, and laser weld to make 72 in. wide blanks.
3. Cut half blanks identical to option 2 from 36.5 in. (925 mm) wide stock and laser weld as
in option 2.
72 48.5 36.5
56 42
48
56* 42*
56
42
6.1.3.3 Tradeoffs
Option 1 offers lower cost than Options 2 and 3, but it incurs a higher mass. Only one blank is
required per piece, and blanks are formed with a simple V-shaped die in a process that develops
essentially no engineered scrap. Options 2 and 3 offer a lower material cost than 1, but that cost
is more than offset by the cost of the laser-welding operation. Options 2 and 3 weigh and cost
the same.
After the blanks are formed, the piece price and tooling cost for further processing (stamping and
trimming) are essentially equal for all three options.
The effects of the above variables on cost and mass are shown in Table 6.1.3.3-1.
* All masses are based on maximum thickness for quarter tolerance stock,
i.e. minimum thickness + 0.0015 in.
** Based on a projected product life of 600,000 units
The choice of option 1 versus options 2 or 3 will vary among profit centers, depending on the
value ascribed to mass reduction.
In some applications for laser-welded blanks requiring developed blanks, one side of the
stamping requires a different level of surface finish or a different coating from the other, such as
one-side galvanized or differential-galvanized steel. Those applications require either two sets of
blanks, left-hand and right-hand, or the use of material with surface treatment on both sides that
meets the higher requirements. In those cases, material purchase price and the extra cost of set-
up plus in-plant handling would have to be factored into the cost of the options.
It should be noted that all comparisons are based on available coil widths at the time the study
was initiated. As thinner gauges become available in wide coil widths, the mass advantage
offered by the laser-welded blanks will diminish.
6.1.4.1 Introduction
Anti-flutter bars are welded inside the doors of some vehicles just below belt line to stiffen the
door structure against vibration or flutter when driving on rough roads and at highway speeds.
Two-side galvanized steel is used because of the possibility for corrosion. There are no cosmetic
requirements because the bar is not visible.
The flutter bar in this application (Figure 6.1.4.1-1) illustrates the use of engineered scrap, or
offal, by laser welding blanks.
The engineered scrap, approximately 710 mm × 380 mm (28 in. × 15 in.) is generated when the
window opening is trimmed from the door inner panel, which is stamped from 0.75 mm (0.030
in.) two-side galvanized steel. The required 1270 mm × 230 mm (50 in. × 9 in.) blank is
generated by laser welding two pieces.
Since each piece of engineered scrap produces only one half-blank, the engineered scrap supplies
blanks for only one half of the required production. The remaining blanks are fabricated from
purchased coil stock of the same specification.
6.1.4.3 Tradeoffs
The savings in material purchase price for the laser welded blanks is gained at the cost of
handling blanking and welding the scrap. Since both types of blank have identical dimensions,
there is no difference in the masses of the finished bars.
The effects of the above factors on cost is shown in Table 6.1.4.3-1. The cost differential will
vary among profit centers, depending on manufacturing cost variables such as material handling
methods and availability of equipment. The projected product life, which affects tool
amortization, is a minor factor.
In some potential applications for blanks laser welded from engineered scrap, the scrap may be
thicker than required for the application. In those cases, the mass penalty for upgauging will be
a factor in the analysis.
Option 1 Option 2
Type of blank One piece Two piece laser welded
Purchased Raw Material Mass kg (lb) 1.63 (3.6) ---
Finished Part Mass kg (lb) 1.3 (2.9) 1.3 (2.9)
Material Handling and Blanking Cost Base 0.30
Blanking Die Cost --- 40,000
Blanking Die Amort.* --- 0.03
Welding Cost --- 0.90
Material Cost 1.30 ---
Cost Reduction Base 0.07
Several material and process options were considered, including fiber-reinforced composites,
aluminum and magnesium permanent mold castings, and aluminum and magnesium die castings.
The stamped cold-rolled steel design was chosen for its cost advantage and its ability to meet the
design requirements, particularly FMVSS crash testing and durability. Preliminary cost analyses
also indicated that the piece costs for the steel unit were approximately one half that for an
alternate aluminum casting, and the mass was equal.
The support, shown in Figure 6.1.5-1, is a two piece assembly consisting of a base and a leg.
Both pieces are made from a 1475 × 560 × 1.5 mm (58 × 22 × 0.060 in.) AISI 1010 cold-rolled
sheet. The base is made in a five-step blank, draw, trim, flange, and finish flanging process. The
leg is made in a nine-stage progressive die. The parts are assembled by conventional spot
welding. The finished assembly is 1370 mm (54 in.) long by 455 mm (18 in.) wide by 125 mm
(5 in.) high and weighs approximately 6.35 kg (14 lb). The assembly is painted for both
appearance and corrosion protection.
The modular support is completely interchangeable with the standard bench seat, and it uses the
same mounting holes. This arrangement gives a bucket seat option that required no changes to
the floor pan assembly or the assembly plant tooling. The use of carryover seats reduced product
development cost compared with a new seating program. The development time was also
reduced by approximately 80%.
6.1.6.1 Introduction
As a result of increases in the exchange rate, an automotive parts producer supplying anti-
intrusion door beams experienced escalating imported steel costs. The part was manufactured
from hot rolled high strength steel with a minimum 965 MPa (140 ksi) yield strength. It was felt
that, by sourcing the steel supply from a domestic supplier, the material cost could be reduced
and the material cost volatility stemming from fluctuating exchange rates could be eliminated. In
addition, it became evident that manufacturing costs had to be reduced to remain competitive
with other automotive parts producers after the contract expiration date.
The original beam was composed of four components as shown in Figure 6.1.6.1-1.
1. A hat section which runs the full length of the beam, with the top of the hat oriented
toward the car interior.
2. A flat plate with stiffener lipped edges running the full length of the beam located toward
the car exterior.
3. A short length smaller hat section located in the interior of the larger hat.
4. A short length flat plate located above the smaller hat.
A B
1 1
Auto Auto
4
Interior Exterior
Spot Welds
The flat plate with lipped edges is welded to the full length hat section to form a closed section.
The other two shorter components are welded inside the closed section at the center of the beam
to provide additional support. Ten holes are punched at the ends of the beam to reduce mass.
Each component was roll formed, then assembled using 84 spot welds. Fabrication of the beam
involved many manufacturing steps, which contributed to the overall cost. Therefore, the
production cost could be substantially reduced if the beam could be made with fewer parts.
Domestically available high strength galvanized steel with a minimum yield strength of 830 MPa
(120 ksi) was chosen as a substitute for hot rolled high strength steel. Although this chosen yield
strength was lower than that of the existing beam, it was believed that the design could be
improved to offset this disadvantage.
Space within the door was limited due to the presence of the window mechanism and other door
components, restricting the maximum design height of the beam to 32 mm (1.25 in.) and the
width to 205 mm (8 in.).
The static load capacity of the existing beam, based on tests conducted by the manufacturer,
was:
• Yield load of 22,700 N (5100 lb) applied at the center of the beam.
• Simply supported beam.
• Distance between supports 900 mm (35.4 in.).
The static load capacity of the redesigned beam would be required to meet or exceed this value.
Design A featured a one piece hat section suggested by the manufacturer because of its very low
production cost. After the cross section geometry was entered into the CARS program,
calculations were performed showing the section modulus (Sx) to be 1224 mm3 (0.0747 in.3) at
the proposed steel thickness. The yield load was calculated as follows:
The design was not acceptable because the yield load was only 20% of the required value.
Additional iterations were performed with increasing metal thickness until the yield load of the
beam exceeded the required peak load requirement. However, the required steel thickness
exceeded the manufacturing capabilities of the supplier.
Design B was a one piece W shaped section. A number of W shaped cross sectional beams with
slightly different dimensional characteristics were analyzed, using the CARS program. This
effort produced a beam with the required load carrying capacity, but the calculated mass
was 5.2 kg (11.5 lb), or 0.68 kg (1.5 lb) heavier than the existing unit. This was unacceptable,
due the trend towards lighter mass vehicles.
Design A Design B
Auto Auto
Interior Exterior
Design C Design D
At Midspan At end of Beam
Auto
Auto Exterior
Interior
Spot Welds
Design C consisted of two full length W shaped sections, which were designed to interlock when
one is inverted over the other. Two lengths of the same cross section could be produced with
only a slight marginal cost penalty over a one piece beam. The resulting beam design was also
heavier than the present beam, and therefore unacceptable.
Design D, shown in Figure 6.1.6.3-2, consists of two interlocking W shapes, one full length and
one shorter length at midspan. This concept was suggested by calculations performed on
previously considered designs, which indicated the need to remove steel from areas of the beam
where bending moments are lower, such as the ends, to reduce the beam mass without reducing
its strength. Placing a short reinforcement over the central portion of the beam where the
bending moment is highest provides strength where required.
Figure 6.1.6.3-2
Figure 6.1.6.3-3 shows the beam bending moment diagram. Note that, for this arrangement and
the indicated loading direction, the two members act in unison but independently, and there is no
need for shear transfer between members. Hence, fewer spot welds are required. The beam
weighs 4.25 kg (9.4 lb), or 6% less than the original beam. The yield load was 26,564 N (5977
lb), or 17% higher.
Bending
Moment
Results of the GAS analysis for design D, section A-A (at the center of the beam) and section B-
B (at the ends of the beam) are shown in Table 6.1.6.3-1.
Table 6.1.6.3-1 Results from the CARS computer program (GAS analysis) for Design D
Effective Properties
Property Section A-A Section B-B
(center of beam) (at ends of beam)
Area 1.112 .049783
cx -.00061049 -1.4575E-07
cy 0.49573 0.5309
Ixx 0.27544 0.11859
Iyy 6.3078 2.8346
Ixy 0.0061607 0.0024984
Sx+ 0.42403 0.19301
Sy+ 1.5759 0.71945
Sx- -0.4743 -0.21411
Sy- -1.5764 -0.71945
Theta 0.058515 0.052705
Iuu 0.27543 0.11859
Ivv 6.3078 2.8346
Su+ 0.42288 0.19251
Sv+ 1.5759 0.71945
Su- -0.47125 -.21283
Sv- -1.5763 -.71941
rx 0.4977 0.48807
ry 2.3817 2.3862
Iyc 5.5548 2.4499
The iterative process allowed refinements to be made to subsequent designs. Design D was
chosen.
After prototype testing, the beam design could be refined to further reduce the beam mass and
reduce costs. Design strategies to be considered include:
Auto Interior
Thinner Steel
Weld
Thicker Steel
Weld Auto Exterior
Thinner Steel
Figure 6.1.6.4-1 Concept for door beam utilizing tailor welded blank
Traditionally, hat sections, as shown in Figure 6.1.7-2, are used for the front rail. The large w/t
ratios of the top and bottom flanges result in their partial effectiveness under axial loads. The
effectiveness of the top and bottom flanges under axial loads can be increased by using a
hexagonal section as shown in Figure 6.1.7-3. The question is: can the hat section be replaced
by a hexagonal section while achieving mass reduction and maintaining strength? The GAS and
Design Key applications of the AISI/CARS 2000 program was used to investigate this question.
Section 7.2.1 presents the entire process in the form of a tutorial. The results of the
investigation are shown in Section 7.2.1.6, and indicates that the hexagonal section can
effectively replace the hat section while achieving a mass reduction of eight percent.
Figure 6.1.7-1 Concept for door beam utilizing tailor welded blank
18 mm 18 mm
51 mm
75.35 mm
24.6 mm
18 mm 18 mm
Segment Thickness = ?
51 mm
24.6 mm
75.35 mm