MATERIAL AND TECHNOLOGY ISSUES IN THE EARLY STAGES

OF PRODUCT DESIGN: AN EXAMPLE FROM THE AUTOMOTIVE

INDUSTRY
Marco Leitea, Arlindo Silvab e Elsa Henriquesc
a,b
ICEMS, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
a
Email: marco.alex.leite@gmail.com bEmail: arlindo.silva@ist.utl.pt
c
IDMEC, Instituto Superior Tcnico, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
Email: elsa.h@ist.utl.pt

SYNOPSIS
In this paper, an attempt is made to increase the awareness of materials and technologies in
product development, in particular in the first stages of product design. In these early stages,
product architecture choices are made, seldom with scarce information, and often dictate the
final result of product, for better or worse. Incremental innovations in product architecture are
relatively easier to occur, mainly because they dont interfere significantly with company
organization, but disruptive concepts can lead, not only to new product architectures, but also
to new organizational arrangements. The paper shows the complexity of the decision making
for new disruptive concepts in these early stages and tries to provide design guidelines to help
the decision makers in the evaluation of those designs.
INTRODUCTION
The the worlds richest half-billion people, thats about 7 percent of the global population,
are responsible for 50 percent of the worlds carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the
poorest 50 percent are responsible for just 7 percent of emissions according to (Pearce,
2009).
In the automotive industry, these words represent and will continue to represent in the next
years, an immense challenge. Vehicles in the future must be designed and engineered to be in
harmony with people and nature. This is true in the two sides of the equation, on one side the
supply of energy is finite, but even if one considers it infinite, environmental reasons will
lower the appetite for oil based products. The environmental and safety issues today call rapid
technological improvements in the near future and can only be solved with strong
enhancements in material and technologies (Cantor et al., 2008).
Vehicle weight reduction plays a strategic role because it enhances fuel reduction, lowers
vehicle emissions and improves driving performance, although the tendency, in the last years,
has been to decrease weight in the structural parts to allow for additional weight in other car
components such as safety systems, driving pleasure systems and additional motorized
options. Another aspect of vehicle lightweight significance is that it is an enabler for new
technologies that dont involve the internal combustion engine. A lighter vehicle has more
autonomy, by means of being lighter or by allowing more battery weight inside, in the case of
electric vehicles.
The reduction of vehicles weight can be made possible by materials substitution, like the
increasing tendency to use plastics or high strength steels, also new designs that provide equal
solution with less components like the use of magnesium integral parts, rather than steel

welded construction and the use of new manufacturing technologies that can provide new
innovative leaner designs, like the tailor welded blanks or hydro-forming (Bjelkengren, 2008).
Vehicle weight reduction will be a massive effort for the industry. New materials available for
substitution often imply technological changes, corresponding to high investments and strong
interactions with the supply chain. New technological processes also have problems with
cycle times and raw material market availability.
The reduction of weight in vehicles is related with materials, since materials are the physical
embodiment of a design. Materials are strongly related to product architecture, in particular in
the automotive industry, since new materials and technologies can surge new concepts that
change product architecture. Karl Ulrich defines, in informal terms, product architecture as
the scheme by which the function of a product is allocated to physical components (Ulrich,
1995). More precisely, product architecture is the arrangement of functional elements, the
mapping of functional elements to physical components and the specification of the interfaces
among interacting physical elements (Ulrich, 1995). Product architecture has a strong
influence on material and technology selection and vice versa. Since new technologies and
materials often are a strong enabler for new and leaner designs in the automotive industry,
they carry fundamental changes in product architecture and in companies internal and
external organization.
One question arises: what are the fundamental variables in the decision making process for
the development of new product if the new concepts have strong implications in product
architectures of a vehicle. This paper will try to focus on some of these issues with an
example of a vehicle cross car beam (CCB).
MATERIAL AND TECHNOLOGY ISSUES
When considering materials and technologies that may enable weight reductions, the current
options are: direct materials substitution, new designs that provide equal or more integrated
solutions and new manufacturing technologies that can provide new designs (Bjelkengren,
2008).
The first step when considering new architectures that strongly relate to materials and
correspondent process selection should be the decomposition in terms of complexity. This
implies the materials selection and the product itself. Product complexity should be measured
in terms of product aggregated functions, number of interfaces, modularity or integral
decisions. Materials selection complexity can be measured in terms of the necessary changes
to the current process: investments in new machines and new tools, global locations that are
impacted, and the necessary training both inside and in the supply chain necessary for
implementing the new material and new architecture. Fig. 1 shows this framework. An
example: changing from mild steel to high strength steel is a relatively low complex
operation, both in terms of product and in terms of materials and process selection. But if it
requires changing from normal blanks to tailor welded blanks, the materials and process
selection increases its complexity throughout the supply chain, maintaining product
complexity. So the first step is try to understand in what box one stands in the beginning of
product development process, both in terms of product complexity and materials and process
complexity, in order to evaluate the effort necessary for change.

High complexity
in Materials and
Process selection

High complexity
in Materials and
Process selection

Low complexity of
the product

High complexity
of the product

Low complexity in
Materials and
Process selection

Low complexity in
Materials and
Process selection

Low complexity of
the product

High complexity
of the product

Fig. 1 Materials selection complexity and product complexity.

Some tools exist to identify appropriate material candidates, even with limited design
information, (Ashby, 2005), but most materials selection techniques built to identify and
select materials are only applicable at the downstream stages of product design, (Deng and
Edwards, 2007), and often lack an holistic vision of the problem. These techniques are mostly
used for engineering properties, rather than the economical implications of the selection
(Johnson and Kirchain, 2009). Engineering properties and the economical aspects of
manufacturing are only one side of the problem; other issues must be taken care in these early
stages of product design, and some of those issues are strongly related with engineering and
economics in an indirect way. Fig. 2 is an attempt to decompose some of those issues and
interactions in the context of concept generation and selection stages related with materials
and technologies. This outline is also valid for incremental development concepts, but is
designed for disruptive ones. It is intended not for the selection of one particular material or
concept, but to help the process of eliminating the concepts that are not robust enough to
fulfill the strategic objectives of the product. And the strategic objective of the product is to
satisfy the stakeholders.
That objective is a very difficult equation to solve and even harder to equate. In the
development of new products, these conflicting architectures are defined in the very early
stages, with scarce information. Although some of these issues presented in Fig. 3 have yes or
no answers, they all should be in the decision maker mind when considering new
architectures for a vehicle, in particular the disruptive ones. Also, looking at Fig. 2 and Fig. 3
one might say that cost is not on the decision makers mind, but, a closer look to Fig. 3 shows
that the cost is hidden in most of the aspects of decision.
In the globalized and highly integrated automotive industry new materials solutions identified
for a product often will require new product architecture and that, by itself, poses major
problems in supply chain strategy. A new material and its technology once identified must
endure some pain in this early stage to reach production and market. Often disruptive
solutions based on materials and technologies will first have problems because the geometry
change will necessarily change the interfaces with other systems in the vehicle. That alone is a
major problem in the specialized tier 1 suppliers world. Another issue for that technology is

the modular versus integral design. This is particular true in the case of different vehicles that
share the same product or for vehicles with high variety of options. In this case the integral
design will have to struggle to survive. Another issue occurs if the particular solution
integrates in itself other functions of the car which in most cases is desirable, but not without
risk because it will demand for negotiations between the OEM and the other specialized
Tier 1 organization.
If the product architecture issue is solved, and that concept survives, then the supply chain
issue is sure to happen. The globalization requires for solutions that are manufactured and
assembled in different parts of the globe. Material normalization is major problem: almost
similar steels exist with almost similar specifications in US, Brazil, India China or Europe and
some technologies arent available in some parts of the world. Often vehicles, even under the
same brand/model name, are very different regarding available options in different parts of
the world. Another point is materials shortages and different economical conditions for
procurement. Vehicles also change at a faster than ever pace and new architectures based on
materials and technologies must be designed to follow this trend. A final issue is the
packaging space: a particular part may have different dimensional envelop, increasing or
decreasing transport and storage costs.
When a materials and correspondent technology is identified and survives this first loop
(bottom of Fig. 2) then it entangles another loop, related more with engineering properties and
lifecycle properties, (top of Fig. 2). At this point, rough estimates of part geometry thro FEM
techniques can be made and process based cost modeling (Field et al., 2007, Johnson and
Kirchain, 2009), can be used to estimate a part production, use and dismantling costs. Ribeiro
et al., extended this concept to the lifecycle cost and lifecycle assessment of a metallic fender
case study (Ribeiro et al., 2008). In this stage, near or inside the embodiment design, things
start to move closer to the engineer and further away from the manager, but the presence of
both fields of study in both stages of product design is of paramount importance.
Traditionally, the way that the industry found to decompose the complexity of the decision
making at this early stages is to introduce new materials and technologies in sports cars or in
niche markets and then evaluate the ability to scale up to mass production. The issue here is
the cost of opportunity, the fierce urgency of now, the reduced product lifecycles or mass
customization trend that pressures the automotive industry. These issues of materials
identification and selection in the early stages of product design are of paramount importance
because the concept generation and selection stage is where major decisions that influence the
entire product development are taken. The next section will try to identify these issues using a
vehicle part as an example of four different architectures used in todays vehicles.

Fig. 2 Issues regarding concept generation and selection related with materials and
technologies.

Fig. 3 Detailed interactions that arise in the decision making process.

THE CROSS CAR BEAM EXAMPLE

In this chapter an attempt is made to identify these issues with use of a CCB example. The
CCB is considered the backbone of the cockpit, a non visible part, and is a key element to
optimize the mechanical architecture of the cockpit module. The three selected CCBs are
very different in their product architecture and represent three different cars from the segment
SUPERMINI. In the first CCB, the beam is made from two aluminum sheets joined by
resistance seam welding, top of Fig. 4. The brackets are joined to the main beam by means of
fasteners. The second CCB is an integral part made by high pressure die casting of
magnesium, middle of Fig. 4. There is no need for brackets since all functions are
accommodated in an integral design. The third represents the dominant design; where the
beam consists of 2 steel tubes connected together by MIG welding, bottom of Fig. 4. The
brackets are also welded, but fasteners are often used.
Although the very different architecture, provided by their correspondent material and
technology, they all accommodate the same general functions. The CCB is a part that is the
backbone of the cockpit of a vehicle, and its function is, among others, to provide the stiffness
my means of a metal cross car beam and numerous metal reinforcement parts. The structure
of a cross car beam typically consists on the beam itself connecting both A pillar of the
vehicle by means of brackets, the center stack braces that connect to the center of the body
and the top bracket that connects to the front of the body. The main sub-modules that are
assembled to the cross car beam are the wire harness, dashboard, instrument cluster,
instrument cluster bezel, radio, CD player, electric outlet, climate controls, fuse box, steering
wheel, turn signal assembly, climate control bezel, airbag, HVAC and glove compartment,
(Whitney, 2004).

Fig. 4 Three very different architectures in CCB, first Aluminum, second Magnesium and
third steel. Some of the brackets are not shown.

It is however possible to design a cockpit without this CCB part, but using a very different
concept: the structural instrument panel construction. In this case the CCB is made
unnecessary, because the stiffness is provided by the instrument panel. Slik provides a very
interesting review on the evolution of structural instrument panels (Slik, 2002). The
polypropylene (PP) structural IP concept, presented in his paper, consists of three main
injection molded PP parts which are vibration welded together and form a stiff structure. The
concept is shown in Fig. 5. Main part is the retainer, already reinforced with molded-in ribs
behind the visible outer surface. Against the retainer an upper reinforcement part is vibration
welded. Together with the retainer it integrates the air ducts and the defrost duct. Further, the
upper reinforcement panel has molded-in reinforcements in the airbag region to provide
adequate stiffness and strength. A third reinforcement part, the lower reinforcement panel, is
vibration welded to both the upper reinforcement panel and the retainer. In the lower
reinforcement panel, a lower metal tie bar was replaced by an integrated molded rib structure.
Also, the reinforcement for the center stack is integrated into the lower reinforcement panel.
Weld faces are present on both reinforcement panels and on the retainer (Slik, 2002).

Fig. 5 Exploded view of the PP structural IP concept, from (Slik, 2002).

At this point the question arises: how did these very different concepts managed to arrive at
todays vehicles. All the solutions have passed the general requirements of static stiffness
target and dynamic response, the crashworthiness tests and the operational loads. From the
point of view of engineering they are all solid solutions. But that is the baseline for a new
product developed for any application.
In terms of complexity, both in product and materials and process selection, the four solutions
can be ranked in the matrix shown in Fig. 1. The steel concept, the dominant design in the
industry, represents the case of low complexity, both of product and materials selection: the
interactions in the supply chain are present, the interfaces are well defined and the
technologies available in all major manufacturing sites. Also the normative specifications are
well defined and available, making the engineering design somewhat straightforward.
The structural IP and the magnesium CCB have high materials selection complexity and
product complexity. In the case of the structural IP, product complexity increases by
eliminating the CCB, by giving structural functionalities to the plastic parts. In these cases,
normative engineering specifications are not available or are only partially, increasing the
engineering design complexity. The use of computer aided engineering can help in reducing
product development time and costs, but the amount of physical working prototypes increases
the costs of a new product.
The aluminum CCB can be considered with increased materials and process complexity, but
the same complexity in terms of product. Aluminum and steel solutions for CCB dont have
great difference in terms of product architecture, providing most functions the same way, but
they represent a major step in engineering design teams in the embodiment and detail design
phases of product development.

High Material and process selection complexity

Aluminum

Structural IP
Magnesium
High Product
complexity

Steel

Fig. 6 Position of the CCB studied in terms of product and materials complexity

Next step is to understand the implications of the increased complexity in the CCB
construction. The structural plastic IP and high pressure die cast magnesium CCB represent
lightweight solutions for niche markets, built in only one site. The vehicles where they are
introduced are, by nature, vehicles with smaller production volumes.
The aluminum CCB solution also represents a lightweight solution, but in this case for a
vehicle with almost half a million cars produced per year in Europe and Brazil, with different
vehicle versions and evolutions. The steel CCB presented is for a vehicle with multiple
locations in Europe and South America, with a great number of available versions and vehicle
evolutions.
The apparent logic of this example is that new architectures must endure some pain until they
arrive in the most production volume vehicles. New product architectures, that represent
disruptions in dominant designs, are first developed for niche markets, then with the increase
of knowledge of that particular technology, those solutions flow into mainstream vehicles.
This represents time, and time is being shortened in this ever fasting pace industry.
Understanding how to short circuit this logic is of paramount importance for the automotive
industry, especially when the lightweight trend is so strong due to the policy regulations on
CO2 emissions and environmental pressure from customers. This paper tries to contribute for
the solution of this decision making problems by eliciting some major issues associated with
disruptive architectures in new products for the automotive industry.
CONCLUSIONS
Materials are strongly related to product architecture. Seldom materials selection is done in
the later stages of design. That is proper for direct materials substitution or for technoeconomical evaluation of a new technology for the same design, but for disruptive designs,
often driven from new materials or new technologies, a need exists for design guidelines to
help the materials selector solve the technical, economical, environmental and organizational
complex equation.
By first evaluating product and materials complexity, the issues involved in the decision
making process are the supply chain interaction, product architecture and the relation of both
with materials and process identification in the early stages of product design. From this first
loop a second loop occurs that tries to bring up the materials and process specifications,

together with use and dismantling specifications. In the early stages this information is done
with scarce information. This framework is important not for the selection of one architecture,
but for the elimination of not so robust solutions in the early stages of product design.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to recognize the support from the MIT-Portugal Program and
Fundao para a Cincia e Tecnologia (FCT).
REFERENCES
ASHBY, M. F. (2005) Materials selection in mechanical design, Elsevier ButterworthHeinemann.
BJELKENGREN, C. (2008) The impact of mass decompounding on assessing the value of
vehicle lightweighting. Department of Materials Science and Engineering and the
Engineering Systems Division Cambridge, MA, Master of Science in Materials
Science and Engineering and Master of Science in Engineering Systems at MIT.
CANTOR, B., GRANT, P. & JOHNSTON, C. (2008) Automotive engineering : lightweight,
functional, and novel materials, New York, Taylor & Francis.
DENG, Y. M. & EDWARDS, K. L. (2007) The role of materials identification and selection
in engineering design. Materials & Design, 28, 131-139.
FIELD, F., KIRCHAIN, R. & ROTH, R. (2007) Process cost modeling: Strategic engineering
and economic evaluation of materials technologies. JOM, 59, 21-32.
JOHNSON, M. & KIRCHAIN, R. (2009) Quantifying the effects of parts consolidation and
development costs on material selection decisions: A process-based costing approach.
International Journal of Production Economics, In Press, Accepted Manuscript.
PEARCE, F. (2009) http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2140. Yale Environment 360
on Sustainability
RIBEIRO, I., PEAS, P., SILVA, A. & HENRIQUES, E. (2008) Life cycle engineering
methodology applied to material selection, a fender case study. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16, 1887-1899.
SLIK, G. (2002) Evolution of Structural Instrumental Panels. SAE Technical Paper Series,
SAE 2002 World Congress.
ULRICH, K. (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research
Policy, 24, 419-440.
WHITNEY, D. E. (2004) Mechanical assemblies: their design, manufacture, and role in
product development, New York, Oxford University Press.