Post on 14-Jun-2015
description
Correlation of Simulation Models using Concept Modeling Dr. Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk Ford Motor Company
Dr. Salvatore Scalera RLE International
Andreas Arlt SFE GmbH Berlin
Correlation of Simulation Models using Concept Modeling
Dr. Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Ford Motor CompanyDr. Salvatore Scalera, RLE International; Andreas Arlt, SFE GmbH BerlinKeywords: RADIOSS, HyperMesh, MotionView, SFE Concept, Correlation, Front Impact, Side Impact
ABSTRACTPre-requisite for efficient vehicle programs is the CAE driven development process as described in [1], [2] "Up Front CAE". Both CAD and CAE models based on special Concept Software as SFE CONCEPT are used to analyze the attribute performance as safety, NVH or durability and commodity studies concerning the weight, manufacturing, or package. A database of concept models is used to minimize the modeling effort and to maximize the re-usability of components [3]. The accuracy of the models increases over time and leads to an increasing amount of available Concept models in databases. Due to the increased acceleration of the development process, these models are critical in providing direction on vehicle architecture in the early stages of a program. Due to the high importance of these decisions it is mandatory to trust the results of this early CAE models. Correlation of this Concept models to test or reference mainstream CAE models creates the confidence in this approach. The correlation focuses on two aspects: 1. the level of detail required to capture the detailed folding characteristic of the structure (e.g. siderail or B-Pillar) and 2. the process chain used to process the raw output from SFE Concept into RADIOSS Include files (e.g. gap, contacts, spot-welding, adhesives, bolts). This process chain is implemented using HyperMesh in batch mode, details may be found in [4]. This process chain is tuned to latest program modeling approaches and to meet the desired correlation status. In this presentation RADIOSS safety concept models are correlated to different impact modes. Tools and methods are explained focusing on both the automated evaluation of simulation output and the judgment of the correlation quality. The main criteria defining the correlation fitness are video overlay of vehicle and dummies kinematics, curve comparison of vehicles acceleration, velocity, and intrusion. Furthermore the dummy sensors have been evaluated. The combination of the above mentioned steps enable an accelerated and more confident concept phase allowing for more alternatives being analyzed in a more holistic and detailed manner as described in [5], [3]. This is a pre-requisite for the creation of efficient designs under the constraints of an increasingly accelerated development process.
BIBLIOGRAPHY[1] E. Schelkle and H. Elsenhans,
"Virtual Vehicle Development in the Concept Stage – Current Status of CAE and Outlook on the Future", 3rd MSC Worldwide Aerospace Conference & Technology Showcase in Toulouse 2001
[2] Jörgen Hilmann (Ford) und Uwe Wagner (Ford), „CAE driven development process for the early vehicle development phase.“ IABC Confernce 2007 in Berlin
[3] Michael Keimes, Dr. Jörgen Hilmann, Martin Lichter, Dr. Uwe Wagner, "Optimierungsstrategien für Leichtbauprojekte" VDI Leichtbaukonfernz Ludwigsburg, 2011.
[4] Jörgen Hilmann (Ford) und Hans Zimmer (SFE GmbH)„Development and application of an automated model built process chain for the Preprogram and Concept phase using SFE CONCEPT and the Altair Hyperworks package.“ EHTC Konferenz in Strassbourg 2008
[5] K.H. Volz and H.Zimmer, "Optimizing Topology and Shape for Crashworthiness in Vehicle Product Development", IABC Confernce 2007 in Berlin
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Contents
• Introduction
• Motivation for Concept Modeling
• Concept Models & Libraries
• Model built and Include Files
• Correlation quality: Procedure and Criteria
• Vehicle Samples
• Q&A
Correlation of Simulation Models using Concept Modeling
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Electrical
Chassis
Linkto “LHS“
Veh. Dyn.
…
Body
Basic Design
Mechanical Package
Powertrain Integration
Vehicle Integration
Electrical
Concepts
SQ & V (NVH)
Chassis & Veh.Dyn.
Project LeadB-Car
Project LeadC-Car
Project LeadCD-Car
Project LeadCommercial
Body Exterior
Body Interior & Attributes
- Technical Specialists
- Supervisors
- Base heads
- Contractors
… is a Mini Product Development Department
Introduction
Total Basic Design Team with Matrix Organization
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Update2
Update 3
Updateb
UpdateI
Update1
Safety
Pre-decessor
NVH
Pre-decessor
Durability
Update n
Updatec
Updatex
UpdateII
Separate CAE Attribute Workstreams – OLD StateUpdate Effort for each attribute & Risk for misaligned program assumptions
Dev. Time
Mo
de
l Q
ua
lity
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Predecessor
• Concept libraries are populated during the concept modeling work
• Re-use of concept modules increases over time driven through best practice initiatives e.g. for joint execution or Pillar designs
• A process chain is implemented using Altair Hypermesh processing re-occurring pre-processing tasks in automated batch mode
• The full vehicle models are assembled from different sources using the RADIOSS Include files:
- Correlated CAE models / modules from the mainstream development teams
- Parts / Modules developed in the concept modeling department using e.g. SFE Concept
Concept Modeling in CAE driven development processUsage of Concept Module Libraries & Standardized Pre-Processing Procedure & Include Assembly Process
Concept module library
Process Chain
meshing, using
HyperWorks package
in batch mode
RADIOSS
Include
Assembly
Process
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
model updateVCS 3 Level
Safety NVH Durability
Baseline study
Component studiesConcept development& Iterations
Virtual design verification
Safety NVH
New modelVCS 1 Level
Safety NVH Durability
model updateVCS 2 level
Dev. Time
Integrated CAE Attribute Workstreams – Current StateUpdate Effort shared among the team & No risk for misaligned program assumptions
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Predecessor
Mo
de
l Q
ua
lity
• In order to built CAE concept model confidence it is mandatory to verify the predictive power of CAE Concept models using correlation studies.
• Herein the full vehicle models (including the concept modules) reflect the <Job #1> design intent of the pre-decessor model.
• The Correlation-Phase is used to familiarize the team with the new program and to ensure the processes used are capable.
• Two Objectives for Correlation: 1. Geometry and Mesh level of detail2. Process to built the full vehicle model
Price of the new process: Demand for Correlation Starting the work from correlated reference models does not require up front preparation
Correlated reference CAE Model
Substitution of concept modules
Correlation of the new model
Analysis of concept alternativesusing the same processes
Concept module
Modules from the reference model
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Difficult to standardize the correlation approach,
due to differentiation through:
• Application to geometry or the model built process chain; or both.
• Applied Car Line: B-CAR / C-CAR / CD-CAR / Light Commercial Vehicles
• Availability of reference data: Mainstream CAE and/or real test results
• Different Impact Modes: Front, Side, Rear, …
• Different Requirements / Markets
As a consequence the correlation task is challenging and
the required timing difficult to predict.
Correlation typesStarting the work from correlated reference models does not require up front preparation
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Mainstream CAE
SFE Concept FE Mesh
FORD FOCUS
SFE Concept Geometry
Required accuracy of the modelThe Level of detail is a function of the impact mode and
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Within Ford concept models
using the same numerical code,
e.g. RADIOSS for Safety analysis.
The level of detail ranges between both:
- A rough box section to represent an inertia effect of structure, which
is not considered to deform
- A detailed geometry with all holes and depressions if considered
being important e.g. under axial compression in a frontal impact.
ODB – EuroNCAP Frontal Offset / IIHSModel correlation status is satisfactory for:
• Siderail behavior
• Overall intrusion values
(although slight under-prediction of Toeboard intrusion)
• Crash pulse
This CAE model is w.r.t. the offset impactwell suited to support A to B comparisons of architecture studies
Correlation Sample: Frontal Offset Key take aways of this presentation
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
ConventionalCAE model
Concept model
Offset
Deformable
Barrier
64kph To
eB
oa
rd
Da
sh
bo
ard
Co
wl
Up
pe
r_C
ow
l
A_
Po
int
CC
_B
ea
m
rid
ed
ow
n a
rea
Reference model -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Concept model
delta to reference-14mm -1mm 2mm 3mm -6mm 2mm -3mm
Displacement delta values
Straight Front – US-NCAP, SDGModel correlation status is overall satisfactorybut there is a minor difference in the siderail bending.
As a consequence the pulse shape showa slight deviation.
For A to B Comparisons may be used.
Correlation Sample: Full Frontal Rigid Barrier Key take aways of this presentation
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Full Frontal
Rigid Barrier
56kph To
eB
oa
rd
Da
sh
bo
ard
Co
wl
Up
pe
r_C
ow
l
A_
Po
int
CC
_B
ea
m
rid
ed
ow
n a
rea
Reference model -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Concept model -12mm -15mm 2mm 9mm -3mm 2mm -5mm
ConventionalCAE model
Concept model
Blue: Mondeo reference CAE modelGold: Mondeo SFE CONCEPT Model
(with carry over parts e.g. Platform, PT,…)
Correlation Sample: Ford Mondeo Frontal Offset Concept Upper Structure combined with mainstream residual modules
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Dual Color Overlay: A to B comparison
@
Striker
@ Thorax@ Pelvis
@ B-Pillar-Mid
B-Pillar velocities
Doorvelocities
Correlation Sample: Ford Mondeo Side Impact Concept Upper Structure combined with mainstream residual modules
Blue: Mondeo reference CAE modelGold: Mondeo SFE CONCEPT Model
(with carry over parts e.g. Platform, PT,…)
B-Pillar velocities
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
0 ms
50 ms
100 ms
AVI
Correlation Method: Film / CAE Overlay Overlay of a physical Test Film with a RADIOSS Crash Simulation: High Speed barrier side impact
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Accelerometer readings
A B
C
Method:
- Create the average curve of all test curves
- Add ±15% of the average peak of the curves to define a channel
Observation:
• The accelerations evaluated using CAE model are almost always
contained in the band fluctuation of real acceleration
• The peak of the B-pillar_@_rocker acceleration is slightly
underestimated
B-pillar @
striker
B-pillar @
beltline
A
B
CB-
pillar
@
rocker
Correlation Method: Curve comparison using channels Overlay of a physical curve measurements with RADIOSS time history readings
Black: CAE modelGray: Test curvesBlue channel borders
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Black: CAE modelGray: Test curvesBlue channel borders
Black: CAE modelGray: Test curvesBlue channel borders
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0,90
0,95
1,00
1,05
1,10
1,15
1,20
1,25
1,30
1,35
1,40
1,45
1,50
1,55
HIC36Shoulder deflection [mm]
Ave5RibDis [mm]
T1 acceleration [g´s]
T12 acceleration [g´s]
Pelvis acceleration [g´s]
Iliac Fy
Acetabulum Fy
2nd row
Normalization: The bar charts represent the max. injury criteria
divided by the arithmetic mean of available test max. injury criteria.
“1” being the average of the available test curve maxima for this criteria, e.g. HIC36
Test Variation: The CAE results (orange bar) are in the range of test values,
except the Pubic Load for the 1st row and Spine Acceleration in the 2nd row.
Correlation Method: Peak curve comparison Overlay of a physical curve measurements with RADIOSS time history readings
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
0,85
0,90
0,95
1,00
1,05
1,10
1,15
1,20
1,25
1,30
1,35
1,40
1,45
HIC36 MaxThoRib Abdomen Force Spine lowe
acceleration
Pelvis acceleration Pubic Fy
1st row
• Concept modeling significantly changed the vehicle development
towards a CAE driven Development Process,
however requires to built confidence in the used simulation models.
� Demand for correlation!
• Methods are presented using visual and statistical methods to determine
the correlation quality
• These methods are objective and measurable; they help to be as
accurate as necessary to reflect the system behavior without capturing all
details of one single test result,
� prevents the risk of overfitting / overpredicting to one test.
• Having solutions for concept modeling, process chain and correlation
under control you can use this approach as a generic approach for
structure development.
• Very helpful is the coupling with Topology Optimization e.g. Optistruct.
and the consideration of system noises � Robustness.
ConclusionsKey take aways of this presentation
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera, Andreas Arlt
“white Paper”Part F
Competitor
Part BPredecessor
Part C
Referencemodel
Part A
OtherSegment
Part E
Evolution Part D
Topology Opt.Altair Optistruct
Beam representation of the major Load Pathes
incl. Sensitivities
SWOTDemands / Wishes
• System xyz is not weight
efficient enough
• Demand to improve vehicle
performance abc
• Part t.b.d. is not package
efficient enough
• …
Concept development considering all available findings
Materialgaugeoptimization and Materialgrade optimization
Safety ODB/FF
NVH Static / Dyn.
Weight
Architecture Study
?
Selecting the best Subsystems A holistic Approach of Evolution & Revolution
2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk, Salvatore Scalera Andreas Arlt
Thanks for your attention!
Correlation of Simulation Models using
Concept Modeling
Team of Authors:
Dr. Jörgen Hilmann, Joe Abramczyk Ford Motor Company
Dr. Salvatore Scalera RLE International
Andreas Arlt SFE GmbH Berlin