Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Tuesday, July 31, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2008-01-0854

Advanced High Strength Steels

for Chassis Structures
Raj Sohmshetty and Kiran Mallela
Ford Motor Company

Reprinted From: Innovations in Steel and Applications of Advanced High

Strength Steels for Automotive Structures, 2008
(SP-2204)

2008 World Congress

Detroit, Michigan
April 14-17, 2008

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Tuesday, July 31, 2018

By mandate of the Engineering Meetings Board, this paper has been approved for SAE publication upon
completion of a peer review process by a minimum of three (3) industry experts under the supervision of
the session organizer.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Tel: 724-772-4028
Fax: 724-776-3036

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-0790
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191
Copyright © 2008 SAE International
Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.
The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions
will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the
manuscript or a 300 word abstract of a proposed manuscript to: Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Tuesday, July 31, 2018

2008-01-0854

Advanced High Strength Steels for Chassis Structures

Raj Sohmshetty and Kiran Mallela
Ford Motor Company

Copyright © 2008 SAE International

ABSTRACT

Even though the use of AHSS such as DP590 for body

structure applications is becoming relatively common
among automobile manufacturers, application of AHSS
for chassis structures is relatively new. Chassis
structures such as frames and sub-frames typically use
hot rolled steel grades in the yield strength range of 220
MPa to 250 MPa. For body-on-frame vehicles, the
primary load carrying and energy absorbing structure is
the frame. Therefore, hot rolled AHSS such as HR
DP590 would be key enablers for weight reduction and
strength enhancement of these structures. This paper Figure 1. Strength and Formability of Steels
presents a case for developing AHSS grades for chassis
structures, some of the challenges for implementing
them, and related work done at Ford Motor Company.

INTRODUCTION

Traditional automotive steels include mild steels (deep

draw quality steels) and conventional high strength steels
(bake harden-able and high strength low alloy steels).
For these steels, typically as the strength increases
formability decreases (as indicated by % total elongation
and strain hardening coefficient, 'n') as shown in Figure 1
and Figure 2. However, the so-called Advanced High
Strength Steels that include DP (Dual Phase) and TRIP
(Transformation Induced Plasticity) Steels boast better
formability and strength balance than the conventional
high strength steels. They achieve this characteristic
because of their controlled microstructure. As the name
implies, the microstructure of DP steels consists of two
phases, namely ferrite phase that provides the formability
and martensite phase that provides its strength.
Figure 2. True Stress-True Strain Curves
As shown in Figure 3, in a typical integrated steel mill,
the first step in steel making is steel melting and alloying.
Melted steel is cast into slabs that are several inches
thick. These thick steel slabs are then rolled down to
sheets of thickness as low as 1.8 mm in the hot strip mill.
If lower gages and coatings are desired, they are
subsequently processed in the cold rolling mill to reduce
the gages to below 1.8 mm and perform annealing and
coating operations. As hot rolling involves fewer
processing steps than cold rolling, hot rolled steel is less
expensive and is used in suitable applications in auto
industry. Typically, HR steels (> 2 mm thickness) are
~20% cheaper than CR steels (< 2 mm thickness).
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Figure 3. Steel Production Process Steps
Production of advanced high strength steels requires
alloy additions and/or precise control of heating and
cooling to obtain proper microstructure phase
transformation (see Figure 4). Since production of hot
rolled steels has fewer process parameters (for thermal
treatment), it usually requires more alloying than cold
rolled steels to obtain the required microstructures. As a
result, hot rolled DP steel can have significantly different
chemical compositions, mechanical properties, stamping
and welding characteristics compared to the cold rolled
DP steels. Therefore, even though considerable
knowledge has been gained on cold rolled DP590
applications to automotive body structures, a large
knowledge gap exists when it comes to the application of
hot rolled DP590 to automotive body and chassis
applications.
Figure 4. Processing of AHSS
Steel Grade Choices for Chassis Structures
Typical automotive chassis structures such as frames
and subframes have traditionally used hot rolled mild
steel grades in the yield strength range of 220 MPa to
250 MPa. To address the strength increase and weight
reduction goals, a number of material alternatives have
been available to the chassis engineers, such as:
• HSLA 350 (high strength low alloy grade with a
minimum yield strength of 350 MPa)
• HSLA 420 (high strength low alloy grade with a
minimum yield strength of 420 MPa)
• HSLA 550 (high strength low alloy grade with a
minimum yield strength of 550 MPa)
• 590R (high yield to tensile grade with a minimum
tensile strength of 590 MPa)
• 590SF (stretch flange grade with a minimum
tensile strength of 590 MPa)
• DP 590 (dual phase grade with a minimum
tensile strength of 590 MPa)
• DP 780 (dual phase grade with a minimum
tensile strength of 780 MPa)
• TRIP 780 (transformation induced plasticity
grade with a minimum tensile strength of 780
MPa)
The actual selection of the material grade depends on a
number of considerations including:
• Material availability
• Cost
• Strength
• Energy absorption capability
• Fatigue characteristics
• Formability
• Weldability
Hot Rolled DP590 (DP600)
DP (Dual Phase) steel is a type of advanced high
strength steel (AHSS). The number following DP
indicates the minimum UTS (Ultimate Tensile Strength)
of the material. Therefore, DP590 or DP600 means Dual
Phase steel with a minimum tensile strength of 590 MPa
or 600 MPa. Even though the DP600 specification is
used at Ford, much of the rest of the auto industry uses
DP590 specification. In this paper, the terms DP590 and
DP600 are used interchangeably.
Figure 5. DP600 vs. Conventional Steels
The Need for Higher Strength Steels for
Chassis Structures
As shown in Figure 6, external and internal drivers such
as fuel economy, safety regulations, performance,
features & options are resulting in increased pressure on
vehicle programs to reduce weight. Vehicle programs
are facing weight reduction targets of one (and in some
cases two) inertia weight class. Other OEMs have also
indicated that vehicle weight reduction is a major priority.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Tuesday, July 31, 2018
It is not usual to target a 10% weight reduction in new
parts.
The weight of a typical vehicle is about equally
distributed among its body, chassis, and powertrain
subsystems. Therefore, aggressive weight reduction
targets at the vehicle level can be achieved only if all the
subsystems of the vehicle are optimized for weight. Cold
rolled sheet steels (coated and uncoated) are used for
much of the construction of a typical automotive body
structure. On the other hand hot rolled sheet steels are
predominant in chassis structures; and castings and
forgings are predominant in powertrain structures.
Advanced high strength steels along with other enablers
such as adhesive bonding are providing potential
opportunities for weight reduction in body structure while
maintaining the required performance characteristics.
Similarly, for chassis structures, there is a potential
opportunity to utilize AHSS such as hot rolled DP600 for
achieving the much needed weight reduction and
strength enhancement.
Figure 6. Drivers for AHSS Applications
Ford Motor Company is a leading manufacturer of pickup
trucks and a major share of its North American revenue
comes from trucks and body-on-frame vehicles. In body-
on-frame vehicles, the primary load carrying and energy
absorbing structure is the frame (see Figure 7). To
achieve the required functional characteristics (Gross
Axle Weight Rating, crash performance, and weight) of
trucks, it is helpful to pursue AHSS applications for
frames and other chassis structures.
Figure 7. Pickup Truck Body & Chassis Structures
Currently, production chassis structure applications of
DP600 include wheel discs and sub-frames. DP600
wheel discs are common in Europe. Wheel suppliers
have reported that HR DP600 for wheel disc applications
is attractive because of its better fatigue and formability
characteristics compared to HSLA grades (see
Reference 2).
HR DP590 APPLICATION CHALLENGES
In order for a successful production implementation of
HR DP590, a number of challenges exist:
• Material availability
• Mechanical property variation
• Stiffness considerations
• Durability/fatigue
• Crash characteristics
• Stampability
• Weldability
• Corrosion limitation
• Business case
Material Availability – HR DP590 is not yet widely
available in North America. Several steel suppliers have
demonstrated capability to produce the material, but
none of them is known to be making this grade in
production quantities. This may be because of the
classic "chicken and egg" situation -- the OEMs would
like to have more than one production ready source for
the introduction of a critical new material and the steel
companies need to see widespread interest among the
customers before developing a material to production-
ready stage.
Material Property Variation – R&A Department at Ford
Motor Company has independently verified the
mechanical properties for HR DP590 from several steel
suppliers. Mechanical properties such as stress-strain
curves, strain-rate curves and fatigue properties were
assessed internally and compared with the data provided
by the suppliers and other industry sources (References
8 and 9). Mechanical properties of HR DP590 obtained
from different suppliers/sources exhibit considerable
variation (see Figure 8) resulting in the following
questions:
• Is the observed variation significant for the
product performance?
• Are the supposedly multiple sources for the
material really interchangeable?
Figure 8. HR DP600 Variation
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Stiffness Considerations – Perhaps the biggest
challenge for the implementation of HR DP600 and other
Advanced High Strength Steels is the stiffness
constraints for the system. Since the elastic modulus of
the steels is about the same regardless of the strength of
the grade, the higher strength grades do not offer any
advantage for stiffness of the system. Some parts of the
truck frame such as the mid rails and the cross-member
to rail joints are stiffness critical. Frame mid-rails control
the overall bending stiffness. Frame rail to cross-
member joints control the torsional stiffness. The
opportunity for downgage with high strength steels is
limited in these parts. One way to overcome this
limitation is to optimize the architecture and cross-
sectional properties of the structure. However,
packaging and investment constraints often limit the
extent of changes that can be made.
Ford IMPACT Project (Reference 1) demonstrated that
weight reduction using AHSS can be achieved while
meeting the structural stiffness targets if sufficient design
freedom exists. Figure 10 shows the transmission cross-
member designs developed using HR DP600. Figure 11
shows the stiffness analyses results for these designs.
Design 1:
• 28% weight reduction
• No overlapping flanges, hence reduces weight
• 70% less MIG welding required.
• Plate reinforcement improves the stiffness.
Design 2:
• 23% weight reduction.
• Increased Cross section
• Partially overlapping flanges to reduce weight
Figure 9. Transmission Cross Member Designs
Figure 10. Transmission Cross Member Analyses
Another approach for overcoming the stiffness limitation
is to use a systems approach and optimize the vehicle
level attribute such as noise and vibration characteristics
instead of trying to meet the individual sub-system
stiffness targets. This approach was successfully used
during R&A projects at Ford.
NVH performance loss due to frame downgage was
recovered through vehicle level root cause identification
and optimization (Reference 1). The vehicle hop
response was found to be related to the bending
modeshape of the frame. The vehicle response was
improved by making changes to the frame modeshape
even though frame stiffness was reduced due to
downgaging.
Figure 11. Optimizing Stiffness at Vehicle Level
Durability/Fatigue: Base material fatigue data shows
that the fatigue characteristics of HR DP600 are better
than comparable conventional high strength steels.
However, published data suggests that the weld joint
fatigue characteristics are not dependent on the strength
of the base material. Therefore, if a simple downgage
with a grade change is made, the operating stresses in
the weld joint area increase resulting in reduced fatigue
life. If critical stresses occur in weld joint areas, the
structure must be redesigned suitable to avoid reduction
in fatigue life.
A prototype vehicle with HR DP600 rails was built. The
CAE analysis showed that a bracket to frame rail joint
area would have critical stresses. The joint was
redesigned for use with the downgaged rails and the
prototype vehicle successfully completed durability
testing (see Figure 12).
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Figure 14. Thinning Prediction for HR DP600 Parts

Stampability of HR DP590 is expected to be similar to or

better than comparable conventional high strength
grades for parts that require single strike. For parts that
require multiple strikes, the rapid work-hardening of the
material may pose a difficulty. Springback will be higher
than mild steel, but can be predicted and compensated.
However, tooling life for HR AHSS stampings is an
Figure 12. Vehicle with HR DP600 Frame Rails unknown and needs to be studied in detail.

Weldability - Based on the published data & Ford Motor

Crash Characteristics – Several prior studies have Company R&A work, DP600 steel is MIG weldable, but
shown that advanced high strength steels exhibit the weld parameters need to be properly tuned. The weld
improved energy absorption characteristics (see schedules need to be developed for each supplier
References 3, 4, and 5). Many of these studies were separately because there are potential variations in
done using idealized components such as hexagonal chemistries among different suppliers. The strength drop
tubes. When an actual vehicle parts are tested, the in HAZ (Heat Affected Zone) should be quantified to
manufacturing effects such as the quality of the welds check if degraded strength is an issue for the function of
play an important role in the energy absorption the part.
characteristics (see Reference 7). Since the advanced
high strength steels work harden considerably, it is
important to use after-stamped properties in the CAE
models (see Reference 6). Much of the prior reported
work was done using AHSS for body structures. Ford
R&A conducted component level crash simulation and
hardware tests using hot rolled DP600 parts. These
tests showed that simple downgaging with higher
strength steel may change the collapse mode of the Strength Drop
structure (see Figure 13). Suitable design changes must In HAZ
be made to achieve the desirable mode shape.

Figure 15. Strength Drop in Heat Affected Zone

Mild Steel HR DP600

Corrosion Limitation – Typical automotive chassis

structures are made of 2.5 mm or higher hot rolled steel
grades with E-coating. Below 2.5 mm thickness range, it
may be necessary to resort to zinc coated cold rolled
steel grades because of corrosion protection
Figure 13. Component Level Collapse Modes
requirements. Some of the HR DP600 parts have been
tested for corrosion performance (see Figure 16),
however, more work needs to be done to establish the
Stampability – At Ford R&A, several prototype parts lower thickness limit for using uncoated hot rolled steel
have been successfully made using this material. Also grades in chassis structures.
CAE simulation has been used to predict stamping
feasibility (see Figure 14).
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Figure 16. Corrosion Testing of HR DP600 Parts
Business Case – Even though Advanced High Strength
Steels provide weight saving and performance
enhancement benefits, the final implementation decision
depends on meeting the required business case. The
best business cases occur when more 15% thickness
reduction and/or elimination of reinforcement can be
made using a higher strength steel grade.
With respect to the application of HR DP600 to chassis
structures, the following issues seem to be impediments
to achieving an attractive business case:
• Many of the chassis structure parts with mild and
conventional high strength steels are around 2.5
mm thickness range. Downgaging of these
parts with DP600 may be possible while still
meeting the required performance
characteristics. However, HR DP600 is not
widely available in gage ranges below 2.5 mm
and using cold rolled DP600 increases the
material costs significantly.
• If the corrosion performance requirements
dictate going to zinc coated steels with lower
gage parts, material cost goes up considerably.
CONCLUSION
This paper reviewed some of the work done at Ford
Research & Advanced Engineering in the application of
advanced high strength steels to automotive chassis
structures:
• Reducing weight in a vehicle, without sacrificing
performance in other areas, can be achieved
through the use of advanced high strength steels
(AHSS). Candidate materials subject to substitution
are typical mild steels, such as low-carbon steel, as
well as high-strength low-alloy steels (HSLA). Dual
Phase steels belong to the class of AHSS. DP
steels provide better strength, formability, and energy
absorption capabilities than conventional high
strength steels.
• Hot Rolled DP590/DP600 provides weight reduction
opportunities in chassis structures. Chassis
structures such as frames are critical load carrying
and energy absorbing elements of pickup trucks and
other body on frame vehicles.
• A number of challenges exist for a successful
implementation of HR DP600 in chassis structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the consultation
and contribution provided by the following individuals at
various stages of this project: Carl Johnson, Saeed
Barbat, Priya Prasad, Kathy Minnich, Robert Woodall,
Nripen Saha, Shyamal Das, Dan Tang, Basheer
Sweiden, Tau Tyan, Jim Goff of Ford Motor Company.
REFERENCES
1. "CAE Analyses for the IMPACT Project", Paul Geck,
Raj Sohmshetty, Matt Zaluzec, and Carl Johnson,
Association for Iron & Steel Technology's
International Conference on Advanced High Strength
Sheet Steels for Automotive Applications, Colorado,
June 6-8, 2004.
2. T. Heck, "Automotive Steel Wheels – The Road to
Dual Phase," Great Designs In Steel Seminar, March
2004.
3. Tau Tyan, "Impact Testing and Modeling of DP600
Front Rails", Great Designs In Steel Seminar, March
2006.
4. Todd M. Link and Jeff S. Grimm, "Axial Crash
Testing of Advanced High Strength Steel Tubes,"
SAE 2005-01-0836.
5. B. Yan, C. Kantner, H. Zhu, G. Nadkarni, and C.
Horvath, "Evaluation of Crush Performance of a Hat
Section Component Using Dual Phase and
Martensitic Steels," SAE 2005-01-0837.
6. Omar Faruque, Kiran Mallela, Danielle Zeng, Nripen
Saha, "Effect of Forming on Crash Performance of
an Automotive Structure – An Analytical Study",
Third MIT Conference on Computational Fluid and
Solid Mechanics, June 14-17, 2005.
7. Raj Sohmshetty, Kiran Mallela, Omar Faruque, Paul
Geck and Adrian Elliot, "Analytical and Experimental
Study of Component Level Crush Performance of
DP600 Steel", SAE 2006 World Congress, SAE
2006-01-1587.
8. Benda Yan and Dennis Urban, "Characterization of
fatigue and crash performance of new generation
high strength steels for automotive applications,"
AISI Report No. TRP 0038, January 2003.
9. C.A. Apple, S.G. Fountoulakis, S.C. Kelley, M.L.
Gentilcore, International Steel Group, "Hot-Rolled
590 MPa Tensile Strength Dual Phase Steel For
Structural Automotive Components," SAE Paper
Number 2004-01-0504.
CONTACT
Raj Sohmshetty
Research & Development
Ford Motor Company
2101. Village Road, Dearborn, MI - 48121
rsohmshe@ford.com