Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

CAE @ Ford

2,967 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

CAE @ Ford

  1. 1. Dr Stefan Gaßmann, Dr Axel HänschkeCAE @ Ford2011 European HyperWorks Technology ConferenceBonn, November 8–9, 2011
  2. 2. A few words about FordThe Ford CAE landscapeThe Challenges CAE facesOpportunities that we should leveragePage 2
  3. 3. FordPage 3
  4. 4. Global Company• Global • Europe – 166,000 employees – 66,000 employees – 70 plants – 22 plants – 2 Brands: Ford, Lincoln – 1 Brand: Ford – Market Share 2010: – Market Share 2011 YTD: 16.4% USA 8.4% EU19 9.8% South America 9.2% Australia 2.5% China, IndiaPage 4
  5. 5. Global Engineering Dearborn MI USA Dunton UK Köln Germany Shanghai Cuautitlán China Mexico Chennai India Camaçari Brazil Broadmeadows AustraliaPage 5
  6. 6. Global Manufacturing Dearborn MI St Petersburg USA Russia Saarlouis Germany Chongqin China Valencia Spain Hanoi Vietnam Santa Rosa Philippines Pretoria South Africa Pacheco ArgentiniaExample: C CarPage 6
  7. 7. Global Process• Global “We have implemented a global product strategy that calls for product excellence through leadership in design, safety, fuel economy, driving Product quality, interior comfort and convenience features and technology – particularly infotainment,” said Derrick Kuzak, group vice president, Global Development Product Development. “This strategy aligns the global product and System technology plans and all vehicle programs around the attributes that distinguish all Ford vehicles globally in a crowded marketplace.” (GPDS) The strategy also included the development of a global DNA – a standard for the way a vehicle should feel, sound, drive and even smell. “Defining a global DNA ensures the development of vehicles that are ‘unmistakably a Ford,’” said Kuzak. “It also ensures consistency of engineering and development within the Ford team and among our supplier partners.” A global standard also was established for the way Ford products and components are made. “We all need to be on the same page so that it’s very clear what our processes and deliverables are and how we communicate our needs with one another,” said Raj Nair, vice president, Engineering, Global Product Development. “If we’re trying to reinvent the process every single time, we’re losing valuable time that could be spent engineering new vehicles.”Page 7
  8. 8. Global ProductPage 8
  9. 9. CAEPage 9
  10. 10. CAE ToolsetPage 10
  11. 11. CAE Toolset• Finite Element tools with Pre- and Post-Processing – General purpose: Abaqus implicit, explicit, MSC Nastran, Radioss implicit, explicit, etc. – Crash: Radioss explicit, LS-Dyna – CFD: PowerFLOW (aero), RadTherm (heat protection), Fluent (cooling, clima, water manaagement), OpenFOAM under review – General Pre- and Post-Processing tools: ANSA, MetaPost, Animator, etc.• Multibody Simulation tools with Pre-and Post-Processing – ADAMS, ADAMS-Car, MADYMO• General Purpose Simulation Environments – MatLAB SimuLINKPage 11
  12. 12. Altair Products in UseHyperWorks (V10, near future V11)• HyperMesh (general Pre Processing)• HyperCrash (Pre Processing for Crash)• Radioss explicit (Crash and Occupant simulation)• Radioss implicit (Optistruct, Topology Optimization)• HyperView/HyperGraph (general Post Processing)• MotionView / MotionSolve (Open MBS simulation environment, for kinematic and dynamic simulation)• HyperStudy, solver independent environment for DOE‘s and OptimizationPage 12
  13. 13. Siemens Teamcenter for Simulation• Drive the Assembly Process from PLM System TC Sim Pre-Processor SolverPage 13
  14. 14. Concept Modelling Method• Principle types of Modelling – Geometrical representation• SFE CONCEPT Model Library Platform Major Assembly & Fully Assembled Top Hat StructureMapping Area Platform Assembly Mid Floor Area and Rear StructurePage 14
  15. 15. ChallengesPage 15
  16. 16. ‘Concept’ CAE• Parametric tools (such as SFE Concept), CAD and CAE are not seamlessly integrated – as enabler for ‚CAE drives CAD‘• Existing surrogate CAD models and analyses are often not easily and efficiently retrievable• Organisational differences between ‚pre-program‘ and program teams require tools and/or processes for hand-over with minimal lossPage 16
  17. 17. Verification CAE• CAE always traces CAD development by a few weeks – ‘CAE cycle time’• CAE typically requires high maturity of CAD – surface quality, detail, geometric compatibility, welds & connectors – Repair work required for / through CAE• CAE requires ‘non-geometric data’ such as masses and inertia, spec and material data that are often stored in multiple databases• Where process fails, surrogate data are often not easily and efficiently retrievablePage 17
  18. 18. Material Data• CAE requires measured and validated material properties – Difficult to keep pace with developing ‘new’ materials• Ford has in house Material database – Drives necessity to import data from material vendors• Translation of data into ‚material cards‘ for multiple CAE codes mostly manualPage 18
  19. 19. CAE Confidence vs. Test Confidence• CAE models are generally recognised as ‚approximation‘ of final vehicle, prototypes are usually not• Quantification of delta Test / CAE expected from CAE – Quantification of delta prototype test / production vehicle uncommon• CAE analyses are typically run at ‚nominal‘ – Tests are often run at unspecified ‚variability‘ condition• No metric available to describe overall ‘quality’ of CAE model – beyond meshing criteriaPage 19
  20. 20. Robustness• Robustness vs. human influence – Distributed teams for model build, assembly and analyses – Multitude of software settings (‘header set’) require detailed guidelines• Robustness vs. solver & infrastructure – Can results be reproduced on differing hardware or with later software versions? – Reduction of noise/scatter of model results in crash analysis – Translation and migration where different solver are used• Robustness vs. variability – Time and resources (people, hardware, licenses) often prevent to fully exploit variation analysesPage 20
  21. 21. OpportunitiesPage 21
  22. 22. In the Next Release …• New functionality, additional features and bug fixes are expectedBut also consider• Ease of Use – for new and distributed resources• Robustness – against non-optimal input data• Robustness – against user influence• Automation – to incorporate material data and properties• Automation – to update the model after CAD updates• Automation – to allow for MDO and DoE with less resourcesPage 22
  23. 23. CAE Life Cycle• Provide End-to-End Lifecycle – CAE BoM creation — meshing — model build — analysis results — CAE sign-off• Consider early phase without full CAD / BoM – Vehicles are initially created in conceptual (CAE) tools and mature into CAD driven by CAE• Allow for integrated data sharing – Multiple brands — Efficient reuse of data — suppliers — off-shore work• Move from CAD/BoM and Test/Analysis based proposals to truly integrated approachPage 23
  24. 24. Tool Capability• Integrated data flow from conceptual design & CAE into CAD tools• Extend CAE Confidence / Capability into new physical phenomena – Focus on where TGW are in our vehicles – Consider new vehicle technologies• Reduce need for multiple niche products – Quickly integrate specialty tools into large packages• Develop approaches for intuitive presentation / immersion of resultsPage 24
  25. 25. Turn-Around Time• CAE is fast enough to drive and/or enable decisions in all phases• CAE is off the critical path in the development process• Key requirements – CAE Lifecycle solution – Efficient retrieval / reuse / creation of CAE models – Fully automated mesh generation – model build – analysis – Software optimisation for compute environmentPage 25
  26. 26. Thank YouDr Stefan Gaßmann | sgassman@ford.com | +49.221.9034728Dr Axel Hänschke | ahaensch@ford.com | +49.221.9033441Page 26

×