In the context of an internal study, performed by the BMW Group, dealing with the potential of secondary mass effects, several differentiated correlation analysis have been completed in order to determine the total vehicle mass sensitivity of several parts and component assemblies. The method applied in this study is similar to the approach of the negative weight spiral by Braess [5], but expanded with the secondary mass effects of the car body. For the study, two identical designed cars, the BMW 5-series and 7-series of the current and predecessor generation, were compared, ❷. Correlation coefficients in dependency of the total vehicle weight were determined for the components chassis KF, drive train KA and car body KRK , Eq. 1. In a first approach, the vehicle interior could be treated as non-related to the total vehicle mass and was therefore not relevant for secondary mass savings. This assumption is applied in other publications as well. The drive train sensitivity to the total vehicle weight could be determined by the correlation of the drive train mass to the torque output. Secondary mass effects in the drive train can only be utilized if the primary mass effect is not transferred into increased driving performance. Open image in new window ❷ Correlation using the example of chassis mass in relation to the total vehicle mass The component specific correlation coefficients KF = 0.15 , KRK = 0.16 and KA = 0.06 add up to a total vehicle correlation coefficient for secondary mass effects of K = 0.37. As a result, a mass reduction of ∆G = 100 kg yields secondary mass effects of ∆Gsec = 37 kg. In case of need, this correlation analysis could be refined to the effect of single parts. Therefore, a procedure according to the pareto principle makes sense since 20 % of the vehicle parts include approximately 80 % of the total vehicle mass. The determined secondary effects again initiate new secondary effects and trigger a chain reaction. As a limit value it can be shown that a primary impulse of ∆G = 100 kg combined with the correlation coefficient K = 0.37 leads to a potential in total mass reduction of ∆Gtotal = 159 kg, Eq. 2. This maximum secondary effect then corresponds to 37 % of the total mass reduction and requires a primary impulse of 63 % of the total mass savings. With respect to the development process of a car, the feasible secondary mass potential essentially depends on the point in time a primary impulse is activated. To achieve the full secondary mass potential, the dimensioning framework has to be specified before the design of any part will be done or any supplier query will be requested. Depending on the manufacturer, the time window of this early concept phase ends approximately 50 to 55 months before start of production. A detailed picture of the time based dependency of possible secondary mass effects could be obtained if each part’s construction completion is weighted with its corresponding part mass along the development timeline, ❸. It is noticeable in the mentioned figure that secondary effects barely could be activated from 45 months before start of production. Open image in new window ❸ Potential secondary mass effects and their dependency on the implementing point in the product development process A holistic approach was developed considering the aforementioned statements and to minimize the efforts for primary lightweight actions by implementing secondary mass effects as numerous as possible. This process in particular is efficient in evolutionary car development (i.e. if a successor of an established vehicle is developed). The proceeding involves the following steps of the process: : determining a strategic target weight : anticipation of secondary mass effects : derivation of the required primary impulse : definition of the required mass of all parts/subsystems : dimensioning and design of the vehicle. $$ {\rm{K}}_{\rm{F}} = \frac{{{\rm{Delta}}\,{\rm{chassis}}\,{\rm{mass}}}}{{{\rm{Delta}}\,{\rm{total}}\,{\rm{vehicle}}\,{\rm{mass}}}} = \frac{{\Delta {\rm{G}}_F }}{{\Delta {\rm{G}}}} = 0.15 $$ (Eq. 1.1) $$ {\rm{K}}_{{\rm{RK}}} = \frac{{{\rm{Delta}}\,{\rm{body}}\,{\rm{structure}}\,{\rm{(without}}\,{\rm{closures)}}}}{{{\rm{Delta}}\,{\rm{total}}\,{\rm{vehicle}}\,{\rm{mass}}}} = \frac{{\Delta {\rm{G}}_{{\rm{RK}}} }}{{\Delta {\rm{G}}}} = 0.16 $$ (Eq. 1.2) $$ \begin{array}{rll} {\rm{K}}_{{\rm{RK}}} &=& \frac{{{\rm{Delta}}\,{\rm{drive}}\,{\rm{train}}\,{\rm{mass}}}}{{{\rm{Delta}}\,{\rm{torque}}\,{\rm{output}}}} \cdot \frac{{{\rm{Proportionaly}}\,{\rm{factor}}\,{\rm{according}}\,{\rm{to}}\,{\rm{W}}{\rm{.}}\,{\rm{Stork}}\,{\rm{[3]}}}}{{{\rm{Average}}\,{\rm{acceleration}}\,{\rm{time}}\,{\rm{0}}\,{\rm{to}}\,{\rm{100}}\,{\rm{km/h}}}}\\ &=& \frac{{\Delta {\rm{G}}_{\rm{A}} }}{{\Delta {\rm{G}}}} = \frac{{1.35\frac{{\rm{s}}}{{{\rm{m}}^{\rm{2}} }}}}{{{\rm{t}}_{{\rm{0 - 100}}\,{\rm{k/mh}}} }} = 0.06 \end{array}$$ (Eq. 1.3) $$ \begin{array}{rll} \rm{Total \, secondary \, mass \, potential \, after \, n \, iterations:} \\&&\Delta {\rm{G}}_{{\rm{ges}}} = \Delta {\rm{G}} + \Delta {\rm{G}} \cdot {\rm{K}} + \Delta {\rm{G}} \cdot {\rm{K}}^2 + \ldots + \Delta {\rm{G}} \cdot {\rm{K}}^{\rm{n}} = \mathop \sum \limits_{{\rm{i}} = {\rm{l}}}^{\rm{n}} \Delta {\rm{G}} \cdot {\rm{K}}^{\rm{i}} = \\ && \frac{{\Delta {\rm{G}}({\rm{Kn}} - {\rm{1}})}}{{{\rm{K}} - 1}};{\rm{with}}\,{\rm{n}} \to \infty \,{\rm{and}}\,\Delta {\rm{G}} = 100\;{\rm{kg}}\,{\rm{and}}\,{\rm{k}} = 0.37 \\&&{\rm{result}}\,{\rm{in}}\,{\rm{a}}\,{\rm{limit}}\,{\rm{value}}\,{\rm{of:}}\lim _{{\rm{n}} \to \infty } \left( {\frac{{\Delta {\rm{G}}\left( {{\rm{K}}^{\rm{n}} - 1} \right)}}{{{\rm{K}} - 1}}} \right) = 159\;{\rm{kg}} \end{array} $$ (Eq. 2) $$ \begin{array}{rll} &&{\rm{x}} \cdot {\rm{costs}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{conventional}}\,{\rm{lightweight}}\,{\rm{design}} = {\rm{costs}}\,{\rm{of}}\,{\rm{lightweight}}\,{\rm{design}}\,{\rm{with}} \\&&{\rm{secondary}}\,{\rm{mass}}\,{\rm{effects}}\,{\rm{x}} \cdot \left[ {\Delta {\rm{G}} \cdot {\rm{5}}\frac{{{€}}}{{{\rm{kg}}}}} \right] = \left( { - 0.37 \cdot \Delta {\rm{G}}} \right) \cdot 1.4\frac{{{€}}}{{{\rm{kg}}}} + \left( {\Delta {\rm{G}} - 0.37 \cdot \Delta {\rm{G}}} \right) \cdot 5\frac{{{€}}}{{{\rm{kg}}}}\\&&{\rm{x}} = 53\% \end{array} $$ (Eq. 3) The determination of the strategic target weight should be based on costumer related characteristics, requirements and on business objectives affected by the total vehicle mass. To support the feasibility of secondary mass effects, it is essential to imply the existing discontinuous weight functions systematically in the dimensioning processes. Moreover, the timeline is critical for the success of this process. It is important to define and communicate the dimensioning masses derived from the strategic target weight. This has to be done before any major detailed design is finished in order to utilize the total potential of secondary mass effects including all iterations possible. For the next step, all possible secondary mass effects, as obtained by applying the component specific correlation coefficients and including all possible iterations, have to be subtracted from the difference of the initial weight to the target weight. The total potential of all possible iterations can only be achieved if the chain of effects is fully understood and all partners involved adopt the proper attitude for this process. The remaining difference between the weight loss already achieved and the target value defines the essential and critical demand of primary mass effects in form of lightweight measures. For a weight reduction of 100 kg in total, 37 kg of secondary mass effects can be achieved if all iterations are included. The remaining 63 kg have to be achieved by activating primary mass effects, ❹. All requirements, the total vehicle target weight, the component allocated secondary mass effects, the needed primary mass impulse and the resulting dimensioning masses on total vehicle, system and component level have to be agreed on with all process members before launch of detailed designs. Based on these premises each component has to be dimensioned and designed. Open image in new window ❹ Course of action to implement a holistic approach of weight reduction In order to evaluate the economic potential of this approach a comparison with a conventional material lightweight strategy can be done. For the conventional lightweight approach, cost savings of approximately 5 € per kg are assumed [6]. With the discussed utilization of secondary mass effects some material (0.37∙∆G) can be saved. In doing so, this mass saving could be capitalized with assumed, but absolutely realistic average material costs of 1.40 €/kg. Only the lightweight costs for the remaining primary impulse (∆G – 0.37∙∆G) have “to be paid for”. In total, this holistic approach implies the potential to cut the lightweight costs of conventional lightweight design in half, Eq. 3. Summing up, the negative weight spiral could definitely be a real blessing if the process for vehicle development with focus on lightweight design is rearranged successfully. Using an early determination of a strategic target weight, anticipation of secondary mass effects and an agreement of required subsequent mass savings, the needed primary lightweight effort of the targeted weight reduction could be reduced by 37 %. As a result of this approach, the cost for lightweight expenses in manufacturing could be reduced by almost 50 %.