Lubrication is an important input to almost every sheet metal forming operation. The lubricants have the following interactions with the forming process:
1. Control metal flow from the binder.
2. Redistribute strains over the punch.
3. Maximize/minimize the growth of strain gradients (deformation localization).
4. Reduce surface damage from die wear (galling and scoring).
5. Remove heat from the deformation zone.
6. Change the influence of surface coatings.
All these effects become more important as the strength of the sheet metal increases. Therefore, special attention to lubrication is required when considering AHSS.
Higher strength steels (HSLA and AHSS) have less capacity for stretch with a lower n-value compared to mild steels. Due to their strength, deformation forces to achieve the part geometry can be quite high. Additionally, these higher strength materials are often specified in thinner gages to allow for weight reduction, which makes them more prone to buckling than thicker steels. In order to maintain flatness, higher restraining forces are required [Since restraining force is a function of the coefficient of friction (C.O.F.) times the blankholder force, the restraining force falls and metal flow increases]. This combination results in higher contact pressure between the metal and the die, and higher interface temperatures. In order to counter these conditions, specialized lubricants that have both a lower coefficient of friction, and the ability to maintain chemistry and viscosity at elevated temperatures, are required.
Higher forming energy causes both the part and the die to increase in temperature. A study by Irmco1 measuring the temperatures on stampings produced from 350 MPa and 560 MPa steels clearly show increasing part temperatures with increasing strength levels, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Stamping Temperatures for High-Strength Steels.
The die temperatures are also significantly higher, and most conventional water-based or oil-based lubricants suffer viscosity reduction, with a corresponding increase in the coefficient of friction.
Ohio State University2 has performed many lubricant studies with AHSS steels; Figure 1 following shows the temperature profile on a DP900 stamping.
Figure 1: Temperature distribution for DP 900 Steel.
The highest temperatures are found on the die opening radius, and exceed 2000C, reinforcing that part and die temperatures increase with increasing material strength. Without high-temperature additives, the lubricant effectiveness deteriorates, and heavy scoring and galling may result. As production speed increases (the number of parts per minute), the amount of heat generated increases, with a corresponding increase in sheet metal and die temperature.
One key to managing this heat problem when forming higher strength steels is application of a better lubricant. The chemistries of these better lubricants are less prone to viscosity changes and lubricant breakdown. Water-based lubricants disperse more heat than oil-based lubricants. Some parts may require tunnels drilled inside the tooling for circulating cooling liquids. These tunnels target hot spots (thermal gradients) that tend to localize deformation leading to failures.
Lubricants for AHSS Stampings
Some lubricant companies have developed stable, low C.O.F. lubricants; one example is the dry (barrier) lubricant. These polymer-based lubricants separate the sheet metal from the die. The dry lube C.O.F. for the same sheet metal and die combination can be 3 to 4 times lower compared to a good wet lubricant, and this performance acts to reduce the effective binder restraining force requirements. Since restraining force is a function of the coefficient of friction (C.O.F.) times the blankholder force, the restraining force increases and metal flow decreases. The net effect is a reduction in the amount of punch stretching required to form the part. Ultimately, forming strains and die wear are reduced. Fuchs Lubricants3 provides the guidelines shown in Table 2 for AHSS lubricant selection.
Table 2: Lubricant Selection Guide for AHSS.
Additives to Extreme Polymer (EP) lubricants create a protective barrier or film between the sheet metal and die. At elevated temperatures, the EP breaks down and deposits a metallic salt layer, which acts as a further temperature insulator (analogous to a surface coating on the die) and allows continued functionality of the lubricant. The complete separation of sheet metal and die by the barrier lubricant also means isolation of any differences in coating characteristics. Finally, a known and constant C.O.F. over the entire stamping greatly improves the accuracy of Computer Forming-Process Development (computerized die tryout).
1 Courtesy of Irmco (Jeff Jeffery).
2 Courtesy of the Ohio State University (Menachem Kimchi)
3 Courtesy of Fuchs Lubricants.
Friction and lubrication are important factors when trying to accurately simulate Advanced High-Strength Steel (AHSS) metal forming processes. In this blog post Dr. Johan Hol, Development Manager from TriboForm Engineering, describes frictional influences that are unique to AHSS forming and how the accuracy of predicting AHSS automotive parts forming may be increased by using an alternative friction model.
The TriboForm software is quickly becoming popular in the world of sheet metal forming and simulation. What started out as an engineering service for tool makers has now evolved into the TriboForm software that works with all major metal forming simulation solutions, including AutoForm, Pam-Stamp and LS-Dyna.
In a sheet metal stamping process, the sheet is always in contact with the tools. This contact is not static but rather dynamic because the sheet metal is flowing over the surface of the tools, i.e. there is a relative motion between the sheet and the tools. Even though the sheet and the tool surfaces look smooth from an unassisted vision; under the microscope they show a complex shape.
The sheet and the tool surfaces have a roughness profile made of a series of peaks and valleys of varying height, depth and spacing, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The roughness profiles of the sheet metal will differ by the type, grade and the coating of the material, while that for the tools will differ by the type of the material and the way they have been machined.
Because of these irregularities in the surfaces of the sheet and the tools, there is a resistance to relative motion. In simple words, this resistance to relative motion is called ‘friction’, and this is the reason why a lubricant is applied on the sheet metal to reduce its resistance and thus friction. The ratio between the force of friction and the contact force between the two moving objects is represented by a coefficient of friction “µ” whose value will depend on the tribology system itself and the forming process, such as temperature of the sheet, ram velocity, contact pressure and the strains in the sheet.
Figure 1 (Left) : Uncoated Mild Steel Sheet of Roughness 1.5 µm.
Figure 2 (Right): Cast Iron Tool Surface of Roughness 0.4 µm.
Now we know where the friction comes from and why we need to apply lubricant on the sheet before stamping. Let’s talk more about how the amount of lubrication affects the quality of a panel during forming. The following pictures give a better understanding of the effect of lubrication.
All the panels shown in the picture below are simulated in AutoForm using a friction model created by TriboForm. Please note that when a friction model is not used, the simulations are run using a constant value of friction coefficient “µ”. Using the friction model, the user can change the amount of lubrication when simulating the panels; and depending on how friction sensitive the panel is, the amount of lubrication will have different effect on the quality of the panel.
The fenders shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5 have been simulated using the same exact simulation set up, except the lubrication amount has changed and hence the part quality is different. The fender shown in Figure 3 is experiencing heavy wrinkling at the corners because of the high lubrication applied on the sheet before drawing.
The higher the amount of lubrication, the lower the resistance to motion, i.e. material then flows freely over the tool surfaces in an uncontrolled fashion, producing wrinkles. Conversely, when the amount of lubrication applied on the sheet is very low, the resistance to motion is very high. This high resistance compels the sheet metal to stretch more than required, producing a high amount of thinning, and in some cases, huge amount of splits, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 3 (Left): Too High Lubrication.
Figure 4 (Right): Too Low Lubrication.
Therefore, it becomes critical to use the proper amount of lubrication while drawing the panel, and it becomes equally important to find out the optimum amount of lubrication needed. Figure 5 shows the fender free of wrinkles and splits with the proper use of lubrication.
Figure 5: Optimum Lubrication.
Just like any other manufacturing process, applying lubricant on the sheet will have some inconsistencies, i.e. noise. Meaning, if the user decides on using a lubrication amount of 1 g⁄m2 on the sheet to produce a defect free panel, what are the chances that the robots will spray the exact amount of lubricants on the sheet every time? If for instance, the accuracy of the equipment is 85%, then the deviation of the lubricant will be in the range of 0.85 to 1.15 g⁄m2 , and if the panel is very sensitive to friction, then it might show some problems. Therefore, it is critical to find a safe range for the amount of lubrication and making sure that the equipment sprays the lubricant in the given range.
Finding a ‘sweet spot’ for the lubrication amount where the panel does not produce a lot of surface defects and at the same time does not show a high thinning value depends on having accurate simulation tools, such as using the TriboForm Plug-In with AutoForm.
In considering the tribology system for the forming of AHSS there are three main points to consider, namely 1) the effect of friction and tribology on springback 2) forming AHSS generates higher temperatures, which again affects frictional behavior and 3) in forming of AHSS different tool materials are used which bring new effects upon the frictional behavior in forming and simulation. All three phenomena should be accounted for in the forming simulation, which can only be achieved by using advanced friction models.
Naturally AHSS has more springback when forming, e.g., automotive parts. Springback is heavily influenced by the frictional behavior which is set in sheet metal forming simulations. This is exactly why you should have an improved description of your frictional behavior in stamping simulations. This in turn leads to better springback prediction. The friction determines the amount of restraining in the part, and based upon this, the springback behavior is influenced. In addition, it is important to consider that in forming AHSS, usually higher contact pressures between the tools and sheet are observed, which is why friction becomes so important. This leads to temperature build up in the material, not seen in that order of magnitude for mild steels. A proper description of the temperature evolution, and the effect on the frictional behavior, is therefore important for simulating the forming of AHSS.
Furthermore, forming AHSS materials demands the use of tool steels, which are not normally used for medium strength steels. Instead of using tools made from cast iron now we must consider the tribological effects of tools made from a controlled amount of carbon mixed with chromium to achieve harder tools. Such tooling materials have an influence on the tribological properties as well. This is why during simulation set up the user has to account for this along with lubricant selection. A good friction model should account for all these dependencies in generating the friction models.
If you have an advanced friction model in your forming simulation, you’ll introduce a realistic tribology system in your sheet metal forming simulation. Subsequently, you’ll achieve a more accurate prediction of splitting, wrinkling, thinning and springback, which are all linked to the friction model you are using.
Dr. Johan Hol, Development Manager, TriboForm
Dr. Ir. Johan Hol obtained his PHD in the field of tribology in sheet metal forming. In 2013 he co-founded the company TriboForm Engineering, a software company providing consultancy services and software solutions in the field of virtual design and tribological modelling.
After joining the AutoForm Group in 2016, Dr. Hol became the Development Manager of TriboForm and is responsible for the development of TriboForm’s software products and technical support in the global market.
Contributed by David W. Anderson, Senior Director, Automotive Market and Long Products Program, Steel Market Development Institute, USA
The introduction of Advanced High-Strength Steel (AHSS) to light vehicle body structure applications poses a significant challenge to organizations involved in vehicle repair. AHSS grades are typically produced by non-traditional thermal cycles and contain microstructural constituents whose mechanical properties can be altered by exposure to elevated temperatures. This temperature sensitivity can alter the mechanical behavior during repair welding or flame straightening, thus seriously affecting the structural performance of the AHSS components after the repair.
The Steel Market Development Institute (SMDI), with our automotive partners – FCA US LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Company – and I-CAR, have completed studies examining the mechanical behavior of various AHSS products after exposure to typical repair arc welding and flame straightening temperature cycles. Recommended practices for repairing components made of these materials were also developed. The studies evaluated many of the AHSS grades being applied and built into vehicle structures today.
AHSS Thermal Evaluation
Several steel grades were evaluated for their sensitivity to thermal exposure taking place during heating to soften the material for straightening, typically by flame. The test results, conclusions and recommendations contained herein are the consensus views of the team members.
A time-temperature test matrix was developed to represent the various thermal conditions encountered during repair welding and flame straightening as shown in Table 1. Individual steel performance result discussions are based on this test matrix and discussed by grade category and specific type.
Table 1: Time-Temperature Test Matrix.
Interstitial free (IF) and high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels are conventional steel products which are essentially a single phase ferrite microstructure and obtain their strength by the addition of chemical elements. These steels have been used in body structures and closures for many years and are well-known to be repairable without substantial performance degradation by arc welding and flame straightening. For repair processes, this means conventional steels can be subjected to heat during repair with the finished repaired component having mechanical properties greater than the properties of the as-received steel. However, it is recommended heating is kept below 750 degrees Celsius to ensure no degradation in properties (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Ultimate tensile strength of Grade 4 IF and HSLA 340 steel after exposure to simulated repair thermal cycles.
Advanced High-Strength Steels
Dual Phase (DP) Steel
DP steels range in strength from 500 MPa to 1200 MPa and obtain their properties from the introduction of a martensitic phase into the ferrite microstructure. The ferrite phase provides formability, while the martensitic phase provides the improved strength. This category of steel grades obtains its microstructure, and thus its mechanical properties through a combination of alloying elements and thermomechanical processing. The processing involves some holding time at elevated temperatures and cooling at specific rates.
Two grades of DP steel were tested, DP 600 and DP 780. The number indicates the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) level of the material in MPa and is the common way to name these grades. UTS for both grades decreases with elevated temperature at a much faster rate than for conventional steels and is illustrated by DP 600 in Figure 2. At temperatures above 650 degrees Celsius the strength suddenly increases then upon additional heating decreases. This behavior is a result of changing the microstructure created during the original thermomechanical processing of the material. Once the microstructure is changed, it is very difficult to return it to its original state in a repair shop environment. Therefore, it is not recommended to subject DP steels to any kind of elevated temperature process for straightening or removing dents. The recommended repair procedure is to remove and replace the DP component. OEM repair guidelines and procedures should be referenced for approved cut and weld lines for replacement.
Figure 2: Ultimate tensile strength of advanced high-strength steels after exposure to simulated repair thermal cycles.
Transformation Induced Plasticity (TRIP) Steels
TRIP steels have a similar range of strength as DP steels, 500 MPa to 1200 MPa, while providing improved formability. The improved formability is obtained with the introduction of additional phases of austenite and bainite into the microstructure. These phases improve the work hardening properties of steel and provide additional energy absorption characteristics. TRIP steel microstructures are obtained in a similar manner as DP steels, and therefore have similar behaviors when heating.
TRIP 600 and 780 were evaluated in the studies and confirmed the expected results as demonstrated by TRIP 600 in Figure 2. Heating during repair of TRIP steel will also adversely affect their mechanical properties and thus the performance of the as repaired component may be compromised. OEM recommended repair procedures are similar to DP steels.
Martensitic Steel (MS)
MS steels typically have a microstructure of 100 percent martensite and have tensile properties greater than 980 MPa. Martensite is the strongest microstructural phase in steel and is obtained by alloying and rapid controlled cooling. This grade is used in areas where exceptional strength and anti-intrusion are needed, including such applications as the A-pillars, B-pillars, rockers and rails.
The effect of heat on MS 1300 is shown in Figure 2. Like other AHSS, it is adversely affected by heat and the performance of the as repaired component may be compromised. Thus, heat should be used only as outlined in OEM repair procedures.
The steel industry, working closely with automotive OEMs and the repair community, have developed and validated repair procedures applicable to the new AHSS used in today’s vehicles. Each OEM has taken the results from the AHSS repairability studies and developed their own repair guidelines.
The steel industry continues to develop AHSS grades with strength levels at and above 1000 MPa. These microstructures contain martensite and will be affected by heat exposure during repair as shown in previous studies. Collaborative studies will continue to update repair procedures for higher strength AHSS, including DP, MS and Press Hardened grades, and new 3rd Gen. AHSS as they are introduced.
David W. Anderson, Senior Director
Automotive Market and
Long Products Program
Steel Market Development Institute, USA
With more than 30 years of experience, David Anderson serves as senior director, Automotive Technical Panel and Long Products Program for the Steel Market Development Institute (SMDI), a position he has held since January 2012. In this position, he is responsible for leveraging his expertise to support SMDI’s Automotive Applications Council’s (AAC) – a consortium of major North American steel producers – expansion into chassis and powertrain programs, as well as serving as the liaison between the AAC and its partner organizations. In addition, he is responsible for coordinating efforts to grow steel long products in the North American automotive /
Vehicle LCA encompasses all phases of the product cycle, from raw material extraction to end of life recycling and disposal.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) continues to gain traction as the preferred method for assessing the environmental impacts of a product, and we are seeing more and more automotive LCA studies, and claims or conclusions based on LCA, being published. Here are five things to look for in an automotive LCA study. This is not an exhaustive list – there are many more things that need to be considered when conducting an LCA (the international standard that lays out requirements and guidelines for LCA, ISO 14044, lists 14). For a detailed look at LCA, I recommend Environmental Life Cycle Assessment, an excellent textbook published by the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA).
1. Is the study comparing “apples to apples”?
This can sometimes be a bit of a challenge in an automotive LCA, as cars are complex products made up of many systems and sub-systems, with supply chains that reach around the world. It is easy to lose sight of apparently subtle differences.
One such difference arises in material comparisons of an existing product and one at the design stage. Before making choices about which material has the lower impact, it is important to decide if this is a fair comparison. Have both designs been fully optimized? Does the theoretical design meet all the requirements (e.g. crash, NVH) of an existing design that has gone through all the additional steps necessary to get to production?
Functional equivalence is another important factor to consider. For example, it would be inappropriate to compare the “body” of a vehicle with a body-on-frame design with the “body” of a vehicle with a unibody design. Though both systems are casually referred to as the “body”, their functional requirements are very different. Similarly, when comparing an assembly of stamped parts to a single casting, it is important to include all the stamped parts that are required to meet the same functional performance as the cast part.
2. Has the best and most appropriate data been used?
As with any assessment tool, data is key, and there are many factors that can help determine which is the most appropriate to be used in a particular study. There are ten of these factors listed in ISO 14044, but I will only talk about three of them here. If you want more detail, Guidance on Data Quality Assessment for Life Cycle Inventory Data, published by USEPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory is a great resource.
Temporal scope – the temporal scope of the data describes when the data was collected, as well as the time period to which the data applies. An often-used rule of thumb is that the data used for the study should be no more than five years old. The goal is to use either data that reflects the time period when the product under study was actually produced or the most recent data that captures the current state of the art (these may of course be the same thing).
Geographical scope – the geographical scope of the data describes the location to which the data applies. This is critical, as the same process may have a very different impact profile in different locations. For example, primary aluminium made largely using electricity from hydropower in Canada will have a much different impact from primary aluminium made in China, where the electricity used comes almost entirely from coal. With automakers increasingly developing global platforms (i.e. using the same parts all over the world, as often as possible), it is important to consider how the results of an LCA might change if a product is produced in a region other than the one studied. The same is true when considering where a product is used. For example, the differences in electricity generation in Canada and China will greatly affect the impact of charging an electric vehicle.
Technological scope – the technological scope of the data describes the technology to which the data applies. Often the same product can be made from a variety of production pathways. Much like production in different regions, production via different pathways can result in much different impacts. An example of this is primary magnesium production. Magnesium produced via the Pidgeon process (a declining, but still-used method) can have a global warming impact more than 1.5 times higher than magnesium produced via the electrolytic method.
3. How sensitive are the results to changes in the choices made?
Because LCA involves choices about things like data and functional requirements (as well as a host of other parameter choices), it is important to understand what happens to the results if different choices are made or underlying conditions change. Inclusion of a sensitivity analysis of this kind allows us to evaluate the results of an LCA and look for areas that might require further study, perhaps by looking for more precise data. It could also affect decisions we might make based on the results. If the results of a study are very sensitive to the location in which the materials are made, we want to evaluate this if we are considering making the product in many different places.
4. What is the fundamental approach taken?
ISO 14040, which lays out the principles and framework for LCA, describes two fundamental approaches to LCA:
- one which assigns elementary flows and potential environmental impacts to a specific product system typically as an account of the history of the product, and
- one which studies the environmental consequences of possible (future) changes between alternative product systems.
It is important to consider which approach was used, and what the chosen approach means in terms of interpreting the results. In a very basic sense, the key lies in the words “history” and “future”. A study that considers the historical impact of a product (i.e. the impact of any product that has already been made) tells us about the impact of that particular product, but may be of limited use in making decisions about what the impact of that same product may be in the future. Studies of the potential future impact of a product, while necessary for decision making, are fraught with all the perils of predicting the future. Both approaches are valuable, and it is important to understand which approach was taken in order to make decisions about how to use the results of the study. The ILCD Handbook: General guide for Life Cycle Assessment, published by the Joint Research Center of the European Commission, provides guidance on when to use each approach in assessing the technological representativeness of LCI data.
5. How broadly can I apply the results?
It is often tempting to apply the results of a study more broadly than is justified. Given all the factors listed above (as well as the many others not included), it is critical that careful consideration be given when making decisions based on the results of automotive LCA studies in order to make sure that the scope of the study is in alignment with the scope of the decision. It is clearly inappropriate to make global decisions based on local studies, or to make future decisions based solely on past conditions. LCA is a valuable, well-developed tool for assessing environmental impacts, but we must be careful to use it appropriately.
The UCSB Automotive Energy and GHG Model, developed on behalf of WorldAutoSteel, is a publicly available, peer-reviewed tool for the assessment of automotive emissions on a life cycle basis. Version 5 of the UCSB Model can be downloaded for free at www.worldautosteel.org. At the UCSB Model page, you’ll find a video workshop at the end featuring Russ Balzer explaining the contents of the Model. A user guide is also available for download.
Does the subject of Life Cycle Assessment confuse you or would you like to learn more? There is a great free online course at our sister organization steeluniversity, “Introduction to LCA”, taught by Dr. Matthias Finkbeiner, head of the department of Sustainability Engineering at Technical University of Berlin, who introduces LCA methodology to analyse the environmental burdens of product and service systems. The course is fun and interactive, and you can finish it at your own pace.
Russ Balzer, LCACP, Technical Director, WorldAutoSteel and Phoenix Group
Russ Balzer is the LCA Technical Director at WorldAutoSteel and Phoenix Group. As Technical Director, Russ manages a variety of engineering projects, and has tactical and strategic responsibilities in WorldAutoSteel’s efforts to use and promote Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Russ recently achieved LCACP certification and was recognized for his work in the field of LCA with the ACLCA’s Rising Star Award.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and particularly vehicle product life cycle assessment, is a topic we are very passionate about here at WorldAutoSteel. So much so that we focus on LCA intensively for the entire month of October across all of our communications channels. Though it’s not an AHSS forming or joining topic, it is one that is critical to truly reducing vehicle emissions for future generations. Russ Balzer, Technical Director at WorldAutoSteel and our resident LCA professional, in this blog and the next, will talk about LCA, its importance, and the tools WorldAutoSteel has developed to provide environmental insight to design decision tradeoffs.
All over the world there are continuing and growing efforts to address transportation greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which remain a major unresolved issue. These efforts are intended to help the transportation sector make its contribution to global emissions reduction goals. Unfortunately, much of this effort is focused on reducing emissions only from the vehicle tailpipe, with no consideration of the other sources of emissions in that vehicle’s life. This is not an effective way to meet these goals. In fact, this approach could lead to the unintended consequence of increasing GHG emissions in some cases. Fortunately, there is a better way – life cycle assessment (LCA), a tool for looking at the environmental impact of a product across its entire life cycle (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Vehicle LCA encompasses all phases of the product cycle, from raw material extraction to end of life recycling and disposal.
Focusing solely on the tailpipe emissions means ignoring other significant sources of GHG emissions, such as vehicle production and emissions generated (or avoided) at the end of the vehicle’s useful life (see Figure 2 on Page 2). An example of this is that tailpipe-only thinking can put too much emphasis on lightweighting. Don’t get me wrong, lightweighting can be an important part of the solution. Three of the four main drivers of fuel consumption (and therefore tailpipe emissions) – rolling resistance, acceleration and gravity (as in climbing a hill) – are dependent on the vehicle’s mass. So we can see why vehicle lightweighting is an obvious choice. It is a direct way to reduce these power demands and achieve better fuel consumption and fewer tailpipe emissions. The problem with lightweighting arises when we are so focused on reducing a vehicle’s mass that we fail to consider the consequences to the vehicle’s overall emissions.
One of the potential consequences arises from the use of lower-density materials like aluminium, magnesium and even carbon fibre to replace steel in a vehicle. From a tailpipe perspective, this can seem like a good (if expensive) solution. Vehicle mass may be reduced, resulting in improved fuel consumption and fewer tailpipe emissions. Sadly, it is not that simple. These low-density materials come with an environmental cost in addition to their higher financial cost. This cost comes in the form of higher GHG emissions in the production of the material itself. On a global average basis, GHG emissions from aluminium production can be as much as eight times as high per kilogram of material as the GHG emissions from steel production. For carbon fibre and magnesium the difference in production GHG emissions is even greater. This means that, even though you may save tailpipe emissions with some applications of these low-density materials, there is always a trade-off of higher production emissions.
Figure 2: The difference between a regulatory focus that includes LCA and current tailpipe emissions.
In the best case, the reduction of emissions in the use phase does result in overall lower emissions, though, because of the trade-off between the tailpipe and production emissions, not as low as predicted by a tailpipe-only metric. Also possible is an intermediate case in which the use phase savings and the production phase increase are approximately equal, resulting in no net savings at all. In the worst case, the production emissions outweigh the use phase savings, resulting in the unintended consequence—higher overall emissions, the very opposite of what the regulation intends.
All three of these cases have two things in common. First, under a tailpipe-only regulation, we don’t know what the actual emissions are, because production emissions impacts are not being monitored. Second, because the low-density materials we are talking about are more expensive, all three of these cases come at a higher cost. So, we must ask ourselves: do we want to force automakers and consumers to pay more money without knowing the outcome? It’s time to consider another route to reducing emissions, and we believe that taking a life cycle approach is the correct route.
LCA assesses all the stages of a product’s life, from raw material extraction through production, use, and end of life processing. Though awareness of LCA has grown rapidly over the last 10-15 years, LCA methodology and practice have been developing since the early 1970s. Today, it is a mature assessment tool with global standards. Many car manufacturers are already using life cycle thinking and LCA, recognizing its importance and effectiveness in product and process design. LCA is equally accepted and used by material producers. In fact, together with many of their member companies, the trade associations of the steel, aluminium, and plastic industries are among the most active members of the global LCA community.
WorldAutoSteel has been directly involved with LCA since 2007, when we partnered with Dr. Roland Geyer of the University of California at Santa Barbara to develop an LCA tool for the assessment of material choices in passenger vehicles. The UCSB Automotive Materials Energy and Green House Gas (GHG) Comparison Model that Dr. Geyer developed on behalf of WorldAutoSteel is now in its fifth version and continues to be one of the most comprehensive publicly available vehicle LCA tools in the world.
The UCSB model is a full vehicle model assessing both GHG and energy effects of automotive material substitution over the entire life cycle of the vehicle.
Computation and parameter values are kept separate for maximum transparency and flexibility. This allowed the computational structure to be peer reviewed by members of the LCA community. The model calculates 27 main result values: three environmental indicators x three life cycle stages x three vehicles, as shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3: UCSB Model calculates 27 main result values.
The model has the flexibility to allow a multitude of different scenario evaluations, offering 14 structural material categories, 24 total material categories, adjustable material recycling methodology, a variety of biofuel and electricity pathways, as well as the powertrains, driving cycles and vehicle classes noted in Figure 4.
Figure 4: UCSB Model analysis options.
To maximize flexibility and transparency, all calculations are shown, and no parameter values are locked or hidden. This makes the UCSB Model an excellent tool for teaching LCA, particularly automotive LCA.
GHG emissions in the transport sector must be reduced to meet global emissions reduction goals. Lightweighting of passenger vehicles can be an important part of the emissions reduction solution in the transport sector, but only if lightweighting scenarios are viewed in the context of the overall vehicle emissions. Many companies inside and outside of the transport sector use Life Cycle Assessment, which considers environmental impacts from the whole of a vehicle’s life cycle, as their primary method to develop this overall view. The UCSB Automotive Energy and GHG Model, developed on behalf of WorldAutoSteel, is a publicly available, peer-reviewed tool for the assessment of automotive emissions on a life cycle basis. Version 5 of the UCSB Model can be downloaded for free at the WorldAutoSteel website here.
At the UCSB Model download page, you’ll find a video workshop featuring Russ Balzer explaining the contents of the Model. A user guide is also available for download.
Russ Balzer, Technical Director, WorldAutoSteel
Russ Balzer is the LCA Technical Director at WorldAutoSteel and Phoenix Group. As Technical Director, Russ manages a variety of engineering projects, and has tactical and strategic responsibilities in WorldAutoSteel’s efforts to use and promote Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Russ recently achieved ACLCA LCACP certification and was recognized for his work in the field of LCA with the ACLCA’s Rising Star Award.