PSI - Issue 19

M. Duchet et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 19 (2019) 585–594 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

592

8

obtain a good evaluation of the fatigue strength.

Fig. 12: fatigue results under tension (left) and bending (right) loading between the as-welded reference 3.4 mm configuration and the 2.7 mm configurations with different effective reinforcement solutions.

4. Application and eligibility of reinforcement solutions according to their cost

To enhance the value of using such reinforcement solutions with lower thicknesses and higher strength AHSS grades, a cost analysis is required to convince carmakers, in addition to a scientific approach. Firstly, the mass saving was obtained on the demonstrators, simply by weighing and comparing them in considering both thicknesses, the initial one 3.4 mm and the reduced one 2.7 mm with reinforcement solutions (Fig. 14). Thus, a mass saving of about 17% can be obtained. It provides a first estimation of the potential of the developed approach.

Fig. 13: average of demonstrators weighing according to their thickness: as-welded reference 3.4 mm-910.5 g (left) versus effective reinforcement solutions 2.7 mm-757 g (right).