JOM

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 22–28 | Cite as

Lifetime costing of the body-in-white: Steel vs. aluminum

  • Helen N. Han
  • Joel P. Clark
Aluminum Overview

Abstract

In order to make informed material choice decisions and to derive the maximum benefit from the use of alternative materials, the automobile producer must understand the full range of costs and benefits for each material. It is becoming clear that the conventional cost-benefit analysis structure currently used by the automotive industry must be broadened to include nontraditional costs such as the environmental externalities associated with the use of existing and potential automotive technologies. This article develops a methodology for comparing the costs and benefits associated with the use of alternative materials in automotive applications by focusing on steel and aluminum in the unibody body-in-white. Authors' Note: This is the first of two articles documenting a methodology for evaluating the lifetime monetary and environmental costs of alternative materials in automotive applications. This article addresses the traditional money costs while a subsequent paper, which is planned for the August issue, will address the environmental externalities.

Keywords

Fuel Economy Spot Welding Assembly Cost Total Variable Cost Roof Panel 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. Davis, “The Potential for Vehicle Weight Reduction Using Magnesium,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 910551 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Keebler, “Ford, Suppliers Put Aluminum Mercury Sables to the Test,” Automotive News (March 28,1994), p. 52.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Poggiali, “Production Cost Modeling: A Spreadsheet Methodology,” S.M. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (September 1985).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.V. Busch, “Technical Cost Modeling of Plastics Fabrication Processes,” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (June 1987).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Park, “The Future of Steel in the Automotive Industry: A Case Study of Doors,” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (May 1988).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S.P. Keeler and W.G. Brazier, “Relationship Between Laboratory Material Characterization and Press-Shop Formabil-ity,” Microalloying 75: Proceedings of the International Symposium on High-Strength, Low-Alloy Steels (New York: Union Carbide, 1977), pp. 517–528.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    K.S. Raghavan, R.C. Van Kuren, and H. Darlington, “Recent Progress in the Development of Forming Limit Curves for Automotive Sheet Steels,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 920437 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.C. Chang, K.M. Wu, and J.R. Vella, “The Regional Stiffness Requirement of Body Panels for Material Substitution Design,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 841202 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.F. Ashby, “Materials and Shape,” Acta Metall. Mater., 39 (6) (1991), pp. 1025–1039.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D.C. Chang and J.W. Justusson, “Structural Requirements in Material Substitution for Car-Weight Reduction,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 760023 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    T. Lyman, ed., Metals Handbook, Eighth Edition, Volume 4, Forming (Metals Park, OH: American Society for Metals, 1969), pp. 163–164,192-193.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.J. Wheeler, P.G. Sheasby, and D. Kewley, “Aluminum Structured Vehicle Technology—A Comprehensive Approach to Vehicle Design and Manufacturing in Aluminum,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 870146 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Saito et al., “Structural Adhesives for Aluminum Body,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 920283 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E.P. Patrick and M.L. Sharp, “Joining Aluminum Auto Body Structure,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 920282 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    B.D. Ludbrook and R.A. Martin, “High Performance, Heat Cured Adhesives and Sealants in Body Construction,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 920314 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ford Engineering Material Specifications, Volumes 1-2 (Detroit, MI: Ford Motor Co., 1993), Metals 1A-99A.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M.F. Shi and S.J. Zurdosky, “Dynamic Dent Resistance Performance of Steels and Aluminum,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 930786 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Automotive News 1993 Market Data Book (Detroit, MI: Crain Communications Inc., May 26, 1993), p. 7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    H.N. Han, “The Competitive Position of Alternative Automotive Materials,” Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (May 1994).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Motor Vehicle Facts and Figures 1991, (Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States: Detroit, MI).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Household Vehicles Energy Consumption 1988, DOE/El A-0464(88), (Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C). HAutomotive News 1992 Market Data Book (Crain Communications Inc., May 27,1992), pp. 63,50.Google Scholar
  22. 23.
    Automobile Fuel Consumption in Actual Traffic Conditions, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (December 1981), p. 112.Google Scholar
  23. 24.
    24. SRI International, Potential for Improved Fuel Economy in Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, (Prepared for the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, Menlo Park, CA, July 1991).Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    M. Ross, “Automobile Fuel Consumption and Emissions: Effects of Vehicle and Driving Characteristics,” Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 19 (1994), pp. 75–112.Google Scholar
  25. 26.
    “A Small Fortune,” Automotive Industries (February 1992), p. 48.Google Scholar
  26. 27.
    J.A. Hausman, “Individual Discount Rates and the Purchase and Utilization of Energy-Using Durables,” The Bell Journal of Economics, 10 (1979), pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    J.A. Dubin and D.L. McFadden, “An Econometric Analysis of Residential Electric Appliance Holdings and Consumption,” Econometrica, 52(2) (March 1984), pp. 345–362.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    K.D. Marshall, “The Economics of Automotive Weight Reduction,” Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA, Technical Paper No. 700174 (1970).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© TMS 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen N. Han
    • 1
  • Joel P. Clark
    • 2
  1. 1.Harvard University Graduate School of Business AdministrationUSA
  2. 2.Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial DevelopmentMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyUSA

Personalised recommendations