Mass saving

We can see that a similar progression for Europe is shown from 1970 to 1990. The distribution of materials in an average size vehicle of 1,300 kg (2,866 lb) is shown in Table 3.4. The polymer percentage has increased to 114 kg today versus the 30 kg or so utilized in the past. The increased polymer usage represents a substantial mass savings. Body structures represent the largest growth opportunity in the future [1], This includes fascias, wheel frames, body panels, and entire roof modules. 

Conduct a statistical hydroburst test program to demonstrate substantial cost and mass savings... 

This parameter, given in Table 11.6, shows that plastic lenses provide considerable mass savings compared to a silicate glass lens. 

Where structural mass saving can pay off, turning into more money-making payload, composites dominate space designers, lured by high dimensional stability and low weight, make extensive use of reinforced polymers in central thrust cylinders of satellites, launch adapters, truss stmctures, antenna dishes, solar arrays and payload supports. 

IP Carrier The instrument panel carrier has typically been steel, but the trend has been toward using lighter weight metals and plastics. The 1997 GM APV minivan used an SMA polymer instead of steel for the support element with a mass savings of over 1.6 kg (3.5 lb). 

A life-cycle study was recently carried out using the fuel tank on a 1996 GMC full-size van. The van was available in two versions, one with a steel tank and one with an HDPE tank. The mass and design information was accurate and directly comparable. The van with the HDPE tank was estimated to consume 31 less liters of fuel over its useful life (177,000 km or 110,000 miles). Usage figures were 25,390 liters when equipped with the steel tank versus 25,359 when equipped with the HDPE tank [13]. The HDPE tank weighed 7.85 kg less, a 36% mass savings, and had equivalent performance to the steel tank. 

Use of a single Brayton turbine to produce the whole electrical load results in the best system efficiency and therefore has the lowest reactor power, lowest system mass, and simplest plant arrangement. The improvement in performance in a single Brayton system can be spent on mass savings, reducing plant operating temperature or other parameters to improve component reliability. 

The mass savings that would be gained by sharing a recuperator, in some cases, would be essentially offset by the mass of the added piping and valves that would be required for cross strapping. 

In summary a shell and tube Ni-base design provides the best perceived overall reliability at the expense of mass. Chemically etched plate fin heat exchanger designs provide a substantial mass savings relative to shelf-and-tube designs (see Section 9.3.9) and the mass benefits would merit further work in demonstrating reliability over the operating conditions envisioned for this component,... 

---