1. Aluminum –
The Safety Advantage
The Aluminum Association, Inc.
Aluminum Transportation Group
ESV (Washington), June 2011
Doug Richman (Kaiser) doug.richman@kaiseral.com www.aluminumintransportation.org
1

2. The Automotive Challenge
Global transportation goals:
– Improve transportation safety
– Reduce fuel consumption
– Reduce CO2 emissions
– Affordability
2

3. Downweighting Advances
Transportation Goals
Weight Reduction with Aluminum
• Improved safety
– Avoid downsizing
– Increase crush space without increasing weight
– Reduced kinetic energy
• Improved fuel economy
– 10% “achievable”
• Cost-effective (with inclusion of secondary weight savings)
• Reduced life-cycle CO2 Emissions
– 20% achievable
3

4. Why Reduce Vehicle Weight?
4

5. Weight Reduction
Improves Fuel Economy
Fuel Economy Improvement / 15% Weight Reduction
(EPA Combined Drive Cycle)
Passenger Vehicle Truck
Downsized Downsized
Base Engine Base Engine
Engine Engine
Gasoline 5.0 % 10.0 % 5.3 % 7.1 %
Diesel 5.9 % 9.5% 5.4 % 7.0 %
PEV 9.5 % * N.A. 8.6 % * N.A.
PHEV 9.5 % * N.A. 8.6 % * N.A.
* Miles/KWH
Source: Ricardo Consulting Engineers,
study for the Aluminum Association

6. Aluminum Weight Reduction
Opportunities:
Aluminum Penetration
Aluminum Opportunity
2500
High AL penetration today
Transmissions
2000
Heads
HVAC
Wheels
(000 Metric Tons Aluminum)
1500
Blocks
1000
69% Practical AL Growth
69% Closures
500 99+%
Body-in-white (BIW)
22% 20% 100% 11%
Chassis Structures
0
Body Blocks Wheels Transmission Heads Closures Chassis HEX Bumpers Wiring
Bumpers
Structure
Note: 1 Lb. of Aluminum replaces approx. 2 Lb. Iron or Steel
6

7. Weight Reduction Studies
• Aluminum sponsored Auto Body Studies
– IBIS and Aachen
• 40-45% Body weight reduction
– 15% total vehicle (550 Lbs w/secondary)
– 10% fuel economy improvement
• No size reduction
Research Study Weight Reduction
(BIW and Closures)
IBIS (2008) 45%
Aachen (2010) 40%
Lotus (2010) 42%
7

8. Weight Savings Translate to Fuel
Economy Improvement
Mass of Body-in-White Fuel Economy Improvement
400 3
350 2.7 MPG
2.5 Improvement
300
Miles per Gallon
Kilograms
250 2
200 0.8 MPG per
1.5
100 lbs.
150
1
100
0.5
50
0 0
Steel (baseline) High Strength Aluminum Steel (baseline- High Strength Aluminum
Steel Intensive Intensive 30 mpg) Steel Intensive Intensive
Source: ika - University of Aachen and the European Aluminium Source: Aluminum Association calculated based on ika mass
Association (EAA) reduction data; assumes 23% secondary weight savings, 27.5
MPG base vehicle 2010
8

9. Downweighting -
Cost Competitive
12.0%
10%
Fuel Economy Improvement (%)
10.0%
Mass+Secondary
8.0%
6.0%
Better
Cylinder Deact on SOHC
Mass Reduction
Aero Drag Dred.
Turbo
4.0%
VVT-ICP Improved Auto Trans
Engine Friction Reduction
EGR Boost Combustion Restart Cylinder Deact. On OHV
Electric Power Steering
Belt Mounted BMISG VVT - CCP on OHV
2.0%
DVVL on DOHC
Low Drag Brakes 6/7/8 speed Auto Trans
Electric Power Steering
Engine Friction Reduction
$150
0.0%
$- $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00
Cost ($)
Source: EPA/NHTSA Joint Technical Support Document – Final Rulemaking; Mass + Secondary – Alum. Association/IBIS
9

10. Aluminum Body Reduces
EV Cost by $775
• 10% Mass Reduction: 9% reduction in battery size
• Low Mass Aluminum Structure Achieves:
– Weight reduction potential: 147 Kg (19%)
• Reduce battery cost: $ 900 – $ 1,950 (@ $750/KWh)
• Expected aluminum structure cost premium: $ 630
• Net cost savings = $775
– Reduced energy consumption: 1.3 KWh / 100 Mi per 100 Kg
10

11. Aluminum
and
Vehicle Safety

12. DRI Study –
Vehicle Configurations
3,500 virtual collisions with SUV
• 595 single vehicle crashes
175 rollovers
420 hit fixed object
• 2,905 two vehicle crashes:
1,750 hit “Accord”
1,155 hit other “Explorer”
Conducted by Dynamic Research, Inc (DRI)
and The Aluminum Association, Inc.

13. Safety Improvement
with Downweighting
ELU Scenarios
Study Conclusions: 100
27%
85.9 28%
Engineering – 80
63.0 61.8
Lighter, slightly larger 60
Other Car
ELU
vehicle is safer
Driver
40
Size (not weight) –
20
better predictor of safety
0
Baseline Added Length Reduced Weight
Constant Weight Constant Length
Adding crush space without adding
weight improves safety 27%
Conducted by Dynamic Research, Inc (DRI)
and The Aluminum Association, Inc.
13

14. STIFFNESS RELEVANCE AND
STRENGTH RELEVANCE IN CRASH
OF CAR BODY COMPONENTS
Public version of official report
83440 by ika
May 2010
Source: ika - University of Aachen and
the European Aluminium Association (EAA)
14

15. Lightweight Potential of Aluminum
vs. High-Strength Steel
• Objective
– Determine maximum weight saving potential of steel
and aluminum in automotive
• No Safety compromise
• No NVH compromise
15
ource: ika - University of Aachen and the European Aluminium Association (EAA)

16. 26 Components for Quantitative
Evaluation
25 21 20
3 2 1 26 22
23
24
19
4 1 Sidewall 10 Firewall 19 Crossmember Rear
2 Roof Crossmember 11 A-Pillar 20 Crossmember Floor
3 Roofrail 12 Roof 21 Sill
5 18
4 IP Crossmember 13 Rearwall 22 Tunnel
5 Cowl 14 Strut Tower Rear 23 Door Panels (outer + inner)
6 6 Strut Tower Front 15 Floor 24 Door Frame 17
7 Longitudinal Upper 16 Longitudinal Rear 25 Door Crash Management
8 Longitudinal Front 17 C-Pillar 26 Door Hinge Reinforcement
7 16
9 Crash Management System 18 B-Pillar
14
8 11 12
9 10 13 15
Source: ika - University of Aachen and
the European Aluminium Association (EAA)
16

17. Stiffness Load Cases (NVH)
Bottom
Static Torsional Stiffness
Torsional stiffness
from deflection of M=6800 Nm DOF
DOF
evaluation 2&3=0 1;3 = 0
point on front
longitudinal
Rocker for DOF
DOF torque 1;2;3 = 0
2&3=0 application
DOF
Bottom
Static Bending Stiffness 4=0
Bending stiffness
from maximum deflection
of bending DOF
DOF
1;3 = 0
3=0
Ftotal= 940 kg•g
=9221 N DOF DOF
DOF 4=0 1;2;3 = 0
4 = 0 DOF
DOF
3=0 Load/force application
4=0
Deflection measured
Deflection measured
Source: ika - University of Aachen and
Deflection measured
European Aluminium Association (EAA) 17

18. Strength Load Cases (Safety)
Evaluated Using European and U.S. Crash Standards
Euro NCAP Side Crash
• Velocity 50 km/hr
• EEVC moving deformable barrier
FMVSS 301 Rear Crash
• Velocity 48 km/h
• Rigid moving barrier
• 0% offset
Euro NCAP Front Crash
• Velocity 64 km/h
• EEVC deformable barrier
• 40% offset
Acceleration Evaluation Point
Intrusion Evaluation Point
Source: ika - University of Aachen and
18
European Aluminium Association (EAA)

19. BIW Lightweighting Potential
Total maximum weight reduction compared to reference car:
Steel (with YS up to 1,200 MPa): 11% Aluminum (with YS up to 400 MPa): 40%
Steel
Steel Aluminium
Aluminum
Components
Source: ika - University of Aachen and
19
European Aluminium Association (EAA)

20. Weight Reduction Can Be Safe
Key Findings:
For most components strength not the limiting factor for conversion to
aluminum
Significant weight reduction achievable without compromise on safety
Weight reduction potential (BIW and closures)
• High-strength steel (with YS up to 1,200 MPa) = ~11%
• Aluminum (with YS up to 400 MPa) = ~40%
Full study available at EAA website:
http://www.eaa.net/en/applications/automotive/studies/
Source: ika - University of Aachen and
20
European Aluminium Association (EAA)

21. Automotive Aluminum
Weight Reduction Facts
• Weight reduction critical to achieving 2025 objectives
Safety
Fuel economy
Emissions
• Proven aluminum components can achieve:
– 15% weight reduction (total vehicle)
– 10% MPG improvement ( MPG)
• Weight reduction additive to other fuel economy improvements
– Including: Diesel, Hybrid, Electric, Aero, Tires, etc.
• Weight Reduction enhances fleet safety
• Weight reduction with aluminum cost competitive with other fuel
economy technologies
21

22. Mass
Reduction Better Fuel
Economy
Infinitely Reduced
Recyclable Emissions
Enhanced
Performance Improved
Safety
Aluminum Builds a Better Vehicle
22