Dr Stefan Gamann, Dr Axel Hnschke

CAE @ Ford

2011 European HyperWorks Technology Conference
Bonn, November 89, 2011
Page 2
A few words about Ford
The Ford CAE landscape
The Challenges CAE faces
Opportunities that we should leverage
Page 3
Ford
Global Company
Global
166,000 employees
70 plants
2 Brands: Ford, Lincoln
Market Share 2010:
16.4% USA
9.8% South America
9.2% Australia
2.5% China, India
Europe
66,000 employees
22 plants
1 Brand: Ford
Market Share 2011 YTD:
8.4% EU19
Page 4
Global Engineering
Page 5
Kln
Germany
Shanghai
China Cuautitln
Mexico
Chennai
India
Dearborn MI
USA
Broadmeadows
Australia
Camaari
Brazil
Dunton
UK
Global Manufacturing
Page 6
Saarlouis
Germany
Chongqin
China
Dearborn MI
USA
Pacheco
Argentinia
Example: C Car
Valencia
Spain
St Petersburg
Russia
Pretoria
South Africa
Santa Rosa
Philippines
Hanoi
Vietnam
Page 7
Global Process
Global
Product
Development
System
(GPDS)
We have implemented a global product strategy that calls for product
excellence through leadership in design, safety, fuel economy, driving
quality, interior comfort and convenience features and technology
particularly infotainment, said Derrick Kuzak, group vice president, Global
Product Development. This strategy aligns the global product and
technology plans and all vehicle programs around the attributes that
distinguish all Ford vehicles globally in a crowded marketplace.
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 its 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 were trying to reinvent the process every
single time, were losing valuable time that could be spent engineering new
vehicles.
Global Product
Page 8
Page 9
CAE
CAE Toolset
Page 10
Page 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 SimuLINK

Page 12
Altair Products in Use
HyperWorks (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 DOEs and
Optimization
Page 13
Siemens Teamcenter for Simulation
TC Sim
Drive the Assembly Process from PLM System
Pre-Processor Solver
Page 14
Concept Modelling Method
Principle types of Modelling Geometrical representation
SFE CONCEPT Model Library
Mapping Area
Platform Major Assembly
& Fully Assembled Top Hat Structure
Platform Assembly
Mid Floor Area and Rear Structure
Page 15
Challenges
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 loss
Page 16
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 retrievable

Page 17
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 manual
Page 18
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 criteria
Page 19
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 analyses
Page 20
Page 21
Opportunities
In the Next Release
New functionality, additional features and bug fixes are
expected
But 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 resources
Page 22
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 approach
Page 23
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
results
Page 24
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 environment
Page 25
Page 26
Thank You
Dr Stefan Gamann | sgassman@ford.com | +49.221.9034728
Dr Axel Hnschke | ahaensch@ford.com | +49.221.9033441