Weight Reduction of Structural Members for Ground Vehicles by the Introduction of FRP Composite and Its Implications

  • Medhavi SinhaEmail author
  • R. K. Tyagi
  • P. K. Bajpai
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)


The dependency of human beings on the automotive industries has risen to large extent and so is the fuel consumption. Vehicular lightweighting is featured in the present paper as an appropriate strategy to address growing concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption by passenger ground vehicles. For every 10% reduction in vehicle weight, the fuel consumption is reduced by about 4–7%. The current demand these days is the vehicles must not only become lighter, but should have power improvements. Vehicular lightweighting can be achieved by substituting some of the iron and steel alloys used in vehicles with other substitutional materials such as aluminum and fiber composites. The composite materials have exceptional properties such as lightweight, high-strength-to-weight ratio, low thermal conductivity, corrosion resistance, considering which the main emphasis has being given to carbon fiber composite materials (FRP) as the prime alternative material for fuel pipes of automobiles. A comparative analysis has been performed among steel 4340, aluminum 6061 alloy, and CFRP fuel pipe. It is observed that the use of aluminum 6061 and CFRP fuel pipe can lead to about 65 and 83% weight reduction of the fuel pipe. The cost associated with the manufacturing and the substitution of alternative materials is also discussed. The cost of substitution with composite materials is, however, the highest, but its implications on fuel saving are extremely beneficial.


Vehicular lightweighting Fuel consumption CFRP Structural members 


  1. 1.
    Tyagi RK, Sharma SK, Chandra A, Maheshawari S, Goyal P (2015) Improved intake manifold design for I.C. engine emission control. J Eng Sci Technol 10:1188–1202Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thandavamoorthy TS (2009) Analysis of structures. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    EPA (2010) Joint technical support document: rulemaking to establish light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards and corporate average fuel economy standards. US Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Knittel CR (2009) Automobiles on steroids: product attribute trade-offs and technological progress in the automobile sector. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, DavisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feychting M, Svensson D, Ahlbom A (1998) Exposure to motor vehicle exhaust and childhood cancer. Scand J Work Environ Health 8–11Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guibet JC, Faure-Birchem E (1999) Fuels and engines: technology, energy, environment, vol 1. Paris: Editions Technip, pp 1–385Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ganesan V (1996) Internal combustion engines (4th edn). McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rudd CD (2001) Composites for automotive applications. iSmithers Rapra PublishingGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xu Z, Huang Y, Song Y, Zhang C, Liu L (2007) Surface characteristics of rare earth treated carbon fibers and interfacial properties of composites. J Rare Earth 25(4):462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stickel MJ, Nagarajan M (2012) Glass fiber-reinforced composites: from formulation to application. Int J Appl Glass Sci 3(2):122–136Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zafer G, Haftka RT, Hajela P (1999) Design and optimization of laminated composite materials. WileyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bakaiyan H, Hosseini H, Ameri E (2009) Analysis of multi-layered filament-wound composite pipes under combined internal pressure and thermomechanical loading with thermal variations. Compos Struct 88:532–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wu W, Jacobs E, Verpoest I (2006) Experimental evaluation of interphase region of carbon fiber composites with plasma polymer polymerized coating. In: ECCM-7 seventh european conference on composite materials, realizing their commercial potential, composites: testing & standardization, vol 2, pp 153–158Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    EPA (2009) Light-duty automotive technology, carbon dioxide emissions, and fuel economy trends: 1975 through 2009. US Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ward’s Communications (2006–2008) Model Light vehicle US specifications and prices. Prism Business Media IncGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Volkswagen AG (2009) In: Proceedings on the international conference on innovative developments for lightweight vehicle structures, Wolfsburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Introduction to composites (1990) Reference handbook (4th edn). Composites Institute, NYGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vasiliev V, Morozov EV (2001) Mechanics and analysis of composite materials (1st edn). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fritz Larsson, Lars S (2001) Carbon polyethylene and PBO hybrid fiber composites for structural light weight armour. Compos A 33:221–231Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marianna TR (2008) Evaluation of effect of thermal stresses on results obtained from single fiber fragmentation test. Master’s Thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Department of Applied Physics and Mechanical EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Powers WF (2000) Automotive materials in the 21st century. In: Advanced materials and processes. ASM International, Materials Park, Ohio, pp 38–41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Amity School of Engineering and TechnologyAmity UniversityNoidaIndia
  2. 2.NSITDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations