UltraLight Steel Auto Body - Final Report - American Iron & Steel ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5.4.3 Investments 5.5 Sensitivity analysis Investments for the assembly line and related tooling and building expenses account for approximately one-third of the total investment. Press lines represent nearly half of the total investment. Weld line investments for tailored blanks are also significant, despite the fact that there are only 16 tailor welded blank parts in the vehicle. Investments are comprehended in the ULSAB results and are represented in the table below. Investments Investments ULSAB ($US MM) % of total Blanking tooling 4.4 1.4 Blanking lines 10.1 3.2 Blanking build 1.2 0.4 Welding line 37.2 11.9 Welding building 5.9 1.9 Stamping tooling 37.1 11.8 Stamping lines 102.9 32.8 Stamping building 6.1 1.9 Hydroforming tooling 1.3 0.4 Hydroform lines 16.3 5.2 Hydroform building 0.5 0.2 Assembly tooling 19.0 6.0 Assembly equipment 40.4 12.9 Assembly building 31.4 10.0 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 313.8 100 A key element of economic analysis is to determine potential cost movements as a result of sensitivity analysis and other scenarios that could impact cost. It includes investigation of labor wage, unit energy costs, equipment life, building unit cost, production life and material costs. As the use of new technologies such as tailored blanking, hydroforming and laser welding increases, so should efficiency, resulting in further cost reductions. The sensitivity analysis, shown in the graph below, illustrates that the factors that most affect body structure cost are labor wage, production life and material costs. Factors of least influence on total cost are unit energy cost, equipment life and building unit cost. ULSAB Final Report 47
48 +20% $44 / hour -20% Labor Wage 5.6 Comparison Unit Energy Cost Overall Cost Overall Cost +20% $0.10 / kwh -20% 15 years 20 years 25 years Equipment Life +20% $1500 / m 2 -20% Building Unit Cost Production Life 3 years 5 years 8 years Material Costs Stamping Parts +10% $352 -20% For comparison purposes, this economic analysis calculated the cost of manufacturing a future reference (Year 2000) structure in addition to ULSAB. This reference is a hypothetical construct intended to represent an averaging of typical mid-sized four-door sedans in the same class as ULSAB. The model inputs assume significantly improved fabrication and assembly techniques in year 2000 body structure manufacturing in the United States, including a lower part count, double attachments, and completely automated assembly. Because no design details were assigned to the Year 2000 structure, the study identified part groupings instead of individual parts, as with ULSAB. The groupings are based on part size and complexity as well as assembly operations grouped by levels of automation and size. The comparison below represents a single run of the cost model ULSAB Final Report
Page 2 and 3:
UltraLight Steel Auto Body Final Re
Page 4 and 5:
Contents Preface v Introduction vii
Page 6:
Preface One of the challenges in re
Page 9 and 10: viii Validation Results During the
Page 12 and 13: 1.1 Benchmarking ULSAB Final Report
Page 14 and 15: 1.2 Design philosophy and architect
Page 16 and 17: ULSAB package drawing front view UL
Page 18 and 19: 1.5 Material selection The selectio
Page 20 and 21: Steel sandwich material was chose f
Page 22 and 23: ULSAB parts list Material Material
Page 24 and 25: ULSAB parts list (cont.) Material M
Page 26 and 27: 280 MPa 2.1 Materials 210 MPa ULSAB
Page 28 and 29: Tailored blank usage Tailored blank
Page 30 and 31: 2.2 Processes 2.1.3 Steel sandwich
Page 32 and 33: 2.2.2 Assembly laser welding Sheet
Page 34 and 35: 3.1 Early involvement 3.2 Tooling 3
Page 36 and 37: Floor complete assembly: the rear r
Page 38 and 39: ULSAB Final Report 3.5.2 Adhesive b
Page 40 and 41: 4.1 Validation 4.2 CAE Analysis 4.
Page 42 and 43: ULSAB Final Report All simulations
Page 44 and 45: ULSAB Final Report The offset barri
Page 46 and 47: ULSAB Final Report Analysis was set
Page 48 and 49: ULSAB Final Report Side impact set
Page 50 and 51: 4.3 Physical testing ULSAB Final Re
Page 52 and 53: Frequency Hz Model Analysis ULSAB S
Page 54 and 55: 5. Economic Analysis Although light
Page 56 and 57: 5.3 Model scope 5.4 ULSAB results U
Page 60 and 61: Comparison of ULSAB with Year 2000
show all

UltraLight Steel Auto Body - Final Report - American Iron & Steel ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?