Evolution of Advanced High Strength Steels in Automotive

Applications
Jody N. Hall
General Motors Company
Chair, Joint Policy Council, Auto/Steel Partnership
May 18, 2011

www.autosteel.org
 Materials Challenges – 1970’s
Steel High Strength Low Alloy Technology
(Alaska Arctic Line Pipe Project, 1970s)
• Strength
• Toughness
• Weldability
HSLA STEEL, X60 and X65
• Consistency
• Low Cost

www.autosteel.org
 Materials Challenges – 1970-2000

Low Strength Ultra High Strength

High Strength Steels
Steels (<210MPa) Steels (>550MPa)

70
60
Elongation (%)

50 Conventional HSS
40 Growth of HSLA
Mild
30 BH Steels 1970-2000
20
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Yield Strength (MPa)

www.autosteel.org
 Materials Content - 1975

Average 1975 Vehicle

3,900 lbs.

Plastics Other Materials

Other Metals

Aluminum 61 %
Steel Mild Steel
Iron
Other Steels

Medium and High

Strength Steels
Source: Ducker Worldwide

www.autosteel.org
 Materials Content - 2007

Average 2007 Vehicle

4,050 lbs.

Plastics Other Materials

Other Metals 57 %
Steel Mild Steel
Aluminum

Iron
Medium and High
Other Steels
Strength Steels
Source: Ducker Worldwide

www.autosteel.org
 Materials Trends in Recent History

Changes in Material Content

Pounds Per Vehicle
Increases - 1975 to 2007 -

Pounds Per Vehicle

Decreases

www.autosteel.org
Materials Challenges – Today

Factors Influencing
Material Selection

Zero Defects

www.autosteel.org
 Increasing Safety Regulations

2003 2009
1991 1995 2000 FMVSS 301 IIHS
50MPH 50% 4.0 X GVW
FMVSS 208 IIHS SINCAP
30MPH 40MPH 40% 38.5MPH 2006 2012
Front Side FMVSS301 FMVSS 216
55MPH 70% 3.0 X GVW

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1990 1994 1997 2003 2006

FMVSS 214 FMVSS 216 FMVSS 201 USNCAP IHSS Side
Side 1.5X GVW Side Pole 35MPH Higher, Heavier Barrier
Front

www.autosteel.org
 Safety

Crashworthiness Fundamentals – Two Key Zones

Energy Management Zones Passenger Compartment resists
(engine compartment, trunk) deformation to prevent intrusion
deform to absorb energy

www.autosteel.org
 Safety
Steels for Energy Management Zone
• Highest Energy Absorbing
• Strength AND Ductility
• Dual Phase and TRIP Grades Preferred

True Stress - True Strain

800
700
600
True Stress (MPa)

500
400
300
HSLA 350/450 Dual Phase and
DP 350/600
200 TRIP400/600
TRIP are Higher
100
Energy Absorbing
0
Grades
0 5 10 15 20
% True Strain

www.autosteel.org
 Safety
Steels for Passenger Compartment Zone
• Highest Strength
• Martensite, and Boron Steels Preferred

Low Strength High Strength Steels Ultra High Strength

Steels (<210MPa) Steels (>550MPa)
70
Elongation (%)

60
50 Conventional HSS
40 Mild
30 AHSS
BH
20
10 MART
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Yield Strength (MPa)
www.autosteel.org
Materials Challenges – Today

Factors Influencing
Material Selection

Zero Defects

www.autosteel.org
 History of Mass Reduction

A Series of Global Vehicle Engineering Studies

ULSAB-AVC (2002)
UltraLight Steel Auto Body -Advanced Vehicle Concept
- 25% mass reduction*
- Improved crash performance
- At no additional cost

ULSAS (2001)
UltraLight Steel Auto Suspensions
- 25% - 34% mass reduction*
- At no additional cost

ULSAC (2001)
UltraLight Steel Auto Closures
- 25% - 30% mass reduction*
* Mass Reductions versus
PNGV Mild Steel - At no additional cost
Benchmark Vehicle

Source: WorldAutoSteel

www.autosteel.org
 History of Mass Reduction
Domestic (Auto/Steel Partnership) DOE-Funded Engineering
Projects 22% to 32% Weight Reduction, 2002-2009
Future Generation Passenger Compartment
- 30% mass reduction *
- Improved crash performance
- At no additional cost

Lightweight Front-End Structures

FreedomCAR Goals
50% mass reduction
same cost
* Mass Reductions
versus actual OEM
donor vehicles
- 32% mass reduction *
- At no additional cost
Lightweight Rear Chassis
- 24% mass reduction*
- At no additional cost
Lightweight Closures
- 22% mass reduction*
- At no additional cost

www.autosteel.org
 Conflicting Direction for Mass & Government Regulations

Safety
• Higher strength / Heavier
gauges

M
A
S
S

www.autosteel.org
 Conflicting Direction for Mass & Government Regulations

Safety Fuel Economy / CO2 Emissions

• Higher strength / Heavier • Lower weight / Lighter
gauges gauges

M M
A A
S S
S S

www.autosteel.org
 Conflicting Direction for Mass & Government Regulations

Safety Fuel Economy / CO2 Emissions

• Higher strength / Heavier • Lower weight / Lighter
gauges gauges

M M
A A
S S
S S

Conflict between Safety & Fuel Economy / CO2 Emissions

www.autosteel.org
 Need for Collaboration

• Many factors led to the development of the Auto/Steel Partnership

and continue today:
– CAFE regulations
– Need for better grades of steel
– Need for better stamping processes
– Migration to higher cost, alternate body materials (not steel)
– Need for uniformity/gauge tolerance too high/variation in yield
strength of HSS/corrosion/formability

www.autosteel.org
 Auto/Steel Partnership – Decade of Development

1987 - Enabling Work at A/SP - 1999

1987 1993
Auto/Steel 1996 1997 1998 1999
Initiated Tech
Partnership Dent Resistance Fatigue Kick off of
Transfer Process Strain Rate
Formed Procedure Deliverables Light-
Weld Quality Adhesive Weight
Endurance Test Bonding Resistant Spotwelds on Strain Rate
Initiatives
Procedure Galvanealed Steels Deliverables
Light Truck
Frame Lightweight Body SAE
Guidelines Corrosion
Early 1990s Hydroforming Test Methods
Focus on Uniform Stamping Uniformity of HSS v. 2
Processes Body Systems
Analysis Tailor Welded Blank
Focus on Uniform HSS Guidelines
Focus on Uniform Coating Weights
Mass Targets

www.autosteel.org
 Auto/Steel Partnership - Decade of Implementation
2000 - Enabling Work at A/SP - 2011
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Enhanced Forming Future Generation Joint Efficiency Liquid Metal Embrittlement
Functional Lightweight and Weld Repair and Hot Cracking Sensitivity
Limits Passenger Compartment
Build Front End of AHSS
Phase 1
Structures Characterization of
Measurement
Phases I & II Mechanically Skid Line Simulation for
System An Investigation of Resistance
Welding Performance of AHSS Sheared Edges of Dual Sheet Metal Surface
Phase Steels Quality Analysis
2005 2007
Assessing Weldability Mass Efficient 2009
2001 of Projection Welding Architecture for Roof Strength Fracture Analysis
Light Truck Frame Joint Stiffness of AHSS During Draw-Bending
Study Fasteners to AHSS Temperature Effect on
Using FEA Impact Performance AHSS Welds

2000 – Enabling AHSS Development - 2011

Low Strength High Strength Steels Ultra High Strength
Steels (<210MPa) Steels (>550MPa)
70
Elongation (%)

60
50 Conventional HSS
40 Mild AHSS
30 BH
20
10 MART
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Yield Strength (MPa)

www.autosteel.org
 Auto/Steel Partnership - Decade of Implementation
2000 - Enabling Work at A/SP - 2011
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Enhanced Forming Future Generation Joint Efficiency Liquid Metal Embrittlement
Functional Lightweight and Weld Repair and Hot Cracking Sensitivity
Limits Passenger Compartment
Build Front End of AHSS
Phase 1
Structures Characterization of
Measurement
Phases I & II Mechanically Skid Line Simulation for
System An Investigation of Resistance
Welding Performance of AHSS Sheared Edges of Dual Sheet Metal Surface
Phase Steels Quality Analysis
2005 2007
Assessing Weldability Mass Efficient 2009
of Projection Welding Architecture for Roof Strength Fracture Analysis
2001 of AHSS During Draw-Bending
Light Truck Frame Joint Stiffness Fasteners to AHSS Temperature Effect on
Study Using FEA Impact Performance AHSS Welds

2000 – Automotive Product Applications - 2011

www.autosteel.org
 Mass Reduction Lessons Learned

What We have Learned in 10 years of Lightweighting Work

• AHSS grades can reduce mass and lower the carbon
footprint for vehicles at low cost.
• Topology and load path optimization tools enable lower
mass solutions for all materials, but take great advantage
of the wide range of steel grades.
• Component substitution of AHSS yields less mass savings
than holistic/system approaches.
• We must keep re-inventing steel to help satisfy increasing
safety regulations, mass reduction and fuel economy
targets.

www.autosteel.org
 HSS and AHSS for Mass Reduction

70
60
Elongation (%)

50
CURRENT AUTO SHEET STEELS, 2011
40
Mild
30 BH
20
10 MART
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1600
Tensile Strength (MPa)

www.autosteel.org
Future Vehicles and Expectations

Factors Influencing
Material Selection

Zero Defects

www.autosteel.org
 3rd Generation of AHSS
…we are researching a new generation of steels for the future.

70 L-I
P
60 AU
Elongation (%)

ST TW
Fu .
SS IP
50 IF Th tur
-
IF-HS ird eO
Ge
ner pportu
40
Mild ISO
30 BH TRI atio nity
CM P nA
20 n
HSL DP,
HS
A CP S
10 MART
0
0 300 600 900 1200 1600
Tensile Strength (MPa) For 2017-2025, new
formable AHSS grades will
enable more steel
mass reduction
www.autosteel.org
 Conclusions

• AHSS content continues to grow resulting in stronger, lower-

mass vehicles, without significant cost penalties.
• Mass reduction improves fuel economy and enables
reduced powertrain size.
• 3rd Generation AHSS grades are being researched and will
create additional mass reduction potential for steel.
• The Auto/Steel Partnership has contributed enabling
technical programs that have resulted in the efficient and
effective use of AHSS in automotive applications.
• The Auto/Steel Partnership provides the forum for
successful pre-competitive collaboration work that brings
technical solutions to the market; lighter, safer, and
environmentally responsible.
www.autosteel.org
 Thank You

QUESTIONS?

www.autosteel.org