5. Aluminum and Fuel
Economy
Michael Bull, director of Automotive Technology
Novelis Inc.
6. Ricardo Study Objectives
• Quantify impact of vehicle weight reduction (5%, 10%, 20%)
– Fuel economy
– Performance
• Quantify impact of weight reduction with engine
downsizing
– Maintain vehicle performance level
• Evaluate weight reduction with different engine types
– Gasoline
– Diesel
7. Vehicle Selection
• Five vehicle classes
– Representative range of vehicle weights and engines
– Passenger and light‐duty truck
• Vehicle Class / Comparator Vehicle
Small Car/Mini Cooper Mid-Size Car/Ford Fusion Small SUV/Saturn Vue
Large SUV/Ford Explorer Truck/Toyota Tundra
15. Model Validation
• Simulation results compared to published data for the
comparator vehicle
– No attempt to “calibrate” models
Simulation
Simulated Fuel Economy vs. Comparator (% diff)
Roadload Force
VEHICLE Maximum
Variation vs. EPA City EPA Highway Combined
Comparator
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%
16. Mid‐Size Car – 3.0L‐4V Gas Engine
With Variable Intake Cam Timing
• Vehicle Performance Simulation Results at Full Engine Load
(WOT)
25. Ricardo Study Findings
• Excellent correlation between simulation and actual vehicle
• Fuel economy improvement with 10% weight reduction
– With no engine downsizing:
3.5 % increase in EPA combined MPG
(9% improvement in performance level)
– Engine down‐sized to maintain base vehicle performance:
6.5% increase in EPA combined MPG
• Similar results for gasoline and diesel engine vehicles
29. Fuel Efficiency: Key Takeaway
By reducing power requirements with
aluminum, vehicles are more affordable and
reduce fuel consumption without the loss of
performance capabilities.
30. Aluminum and
The Environment
Ken Martchek, manager of Life Cycle & Environmental Sustainability
Alcoa
31. Aluminum and the Environment
• Environmental issues such
as climate change are a
growing subject of concern
and customer choice
32. Aluminum and the Environment
• The Aluminum industry has Global, Voluntary Objectives Include:
established and reports • By 2010:
– An 80% reduction in PFC greenhouse
annually on global, gas emissions per ton of AL
voluntary improvement – A minimum of a 33% reduction in
objectives to address fluoride emissions per ton of AL
environment issues – A 10% reduction in average smelting
energy usage per ton AL
– Implementation of ISO Environmental
• Learn more at Management Systems in 95% of IAI
http://www.world members plants
‐aluminium.org/ • Monitor annual AL shipments for use in
Sustainability transport to track aluminum’s
contribution through lightweighting
• Report regularly on global AL recycling
performance
33. Aluminum and the Environment:
Production
The aluminum industry is the world’s
largest user of renewable energy
34. Aluminum and the Environment:
Production
Making progress in reducing its
“carbon footprint”
London, UK (October 2007)
“The International Aluminium
Institute reported today industry
survey results showing a 14
percent reduction in total direct
greenhouse gas emissions from
the production processes of
primary aluminum, between
2000 and 2005, despite a 20
percent growth in primary
aluminum production covered in
the survey. “
35. Aluminum and the Environment:
Production
The energy
required to
produce
aluminum is
small relative to
energy used by
vehicles (USAMP)
55% of aluminum
used to produce
today’s cars is
produced from
recycled metal
Recycled aluminum uses 95% less energy to produce than primary
aluminum
36. Aluminum and the Environment:
Use in Vehicles
Using high strength to mass aluminum reduces weight
and improves fuel economy
37. Aluminum and the Environment:
End of Vehicle Life
• Over 90% of aluminum is
recovered from scrap
vehicles
• Aluminum is one of the
most durable and
recyclable materials.
38. Aluminum and the Environment:
Full Cycle Assessment
• “Improving Sustainability in the
Transport Sector” peer‐reviewed study
published early 2008
• “The application of aluminum in
passenger vehicles and light trucks
manufactured in model year 2006 will
lead to potential savings of:
– 14.5 billion gallons of gasoline and
– Approximately 140 million tons of
CO2eq emissions over the lifecycle
of these vehicles.
Source: IAI Study 2008
40. Example: China City Bus
Partnership with Yutong bus of ZhengZhou, China
Launched in Beijing Early 2008
Weight
7% Fuel 90 mt of CO2
Reduction of
Efficiency Lifetime
1125 Kg (10%)
Value – Ecological
• Reduction in CO2 emissions
• Reduced road surface
wear and tear
Value – Financial
• 7% less fuel
• Maintenance savings (tires,
brakes, suspension)
• Improved corrosion resistance
• Payback of 2‐3 years
41. Transport Model
The “Transport Model” can be assessed
http://www.world‐aluminium.org/Downloads/Publications/Most+recent
• Input Your Own Case Study and Assumptions!
43. Aluminum and Safety
Randall Scheps, marketing director of Ground Transportation
Alcoa
44. A Few Basic Safety Facts
• Aluminum can build a safer car than steel
‐ Audi A8 – one of the safest vehicles on
the road
• Secondary benefits: W/t = 60...80
‐ Handling (accident avoidance) W = width
t = wall thickness
Aluminum
advantages
Mass Specific EA (kJ/kg)
‐ Braking distance reduction
• Direct benefits: Steel
‐ Absorbs more energy, pound for
pound, than steel
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
‐ Predictable deformation t
‐ Not strain‐rate sensitive W
‐ Extruded structures – design flexibility
‐ Better crash compatibility – reduce
weight, not size
45. DRI Study Overview
• Objective of the DRI (Dynamic Research Inc.) study:
‐ Interplay of vehicle weight vs. size in occupant protection
• Methodology:
‐ Real‐world crash data from 3500 collisions
‐ Car to SUV, SUV to SUV, and SUV to fixed obstacle
‐ NCAP pulse and NASS/CDS descriptors
‐ ELU (Injury Index) as proxy for occupant safety
• Scenarios:
‐ 20% weight reduction – no length reduction
‐ 4 inch length increase – no weight increase
46. DRI Results
• Adding crush space without adding weight improves ELU 27%
• Reducing weight further improves fleet safety
SUV to Car Crashes
47. DRI Results
38.88
20% Reduced Weight SUV and Conventional Cars
49. Taper and Flare Example
• 35‐50% higher mean
crush load
• Low peak loads
• Nearly 100% utilization of
crush rail length
125
Load due to Taper (This level is not present during crash)
Crush Force (kN)
100
Taper-Flare Steady Sate Load • Allows shorter front end
• Crush load optimized
50
independent of the rail
Axial Folding of Same Section
thickness
50 100 150 200 250
Crush Distance (mm)
• Not possible in steel
52. Safety: Key Takeaways
• 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
54. Automakers Lighten Up
Daimler AG GM
“Every new Mercedes‐Benz model “The company will use different
will be 5 percent lighter than its materials, such as more magnesium
predecessor.” and aluminum, to make its vehicles
lighter and more fuel‐efficient.”
Ford
“Each Ford Motor Co. model will Land Rover
lose 250 to 750 pounds depending “The LRX was engineered to make it
on its market segment. Cutting one of the cleanest vehicles in its
weight will be more important to class ‐‐ its lower weight and reduced
CAFE compliance than some touted aerodynamic drag aid fuel efficiency
fuel‐saving technologies.” and reduce C02 emissions.”
Nissan Volkswagen
“Nissan will cut the weight of its “Automakers are substituting
vehicles by an average of 15% over aluminum or plastics for steel
the next seven years as it seeks to wherever possible to reduce vehicles'
improve fuel efficiency.”
weight.”
