October SIMPACK Usage for Handling, Comfort and Durability simulations on virtual Proving Ground

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "October SIMPACK Usage for Handling, Comfort and Durability simulations on virtual Proving Ground"

Robyn Watson
5 years ago
Views:

1 SIMPACK Usage for Handling, Comfort and Durability simulations on virtual Proving Ground October 2018 Ivan Mula Vivero Project Manager, Chassis Simulation (Vehicle Dynamics)

2 Content 01_ BACKGROUND 02_ OBJECTIVES 03_ ACTIVITIES 04_ RESULTS 05_ CONCLUSIONS 06_ FUTURE WORK

3 Content 01_ BACKGROUND 02_ OBJECTIVES 03_ ACTIVITIES 04_ RESULTS 05_ CONCLUSIONS 06_ FUTURE WORK

Applus IDIADA: Who we are and what we do Applus IDIADA is an engineering partner to the automotive industry providing complete solutions for product development projects worldwide.

India 168 Pune - Chennai New Dehli UK 45 Cambridge - Nuneaton Guangzhou - Liuzhou Qingdao - Shenzhen Zhaoyuan USA 30 Detroit - Los Angeles Czech Republic 236 Hradec Králové - Brno Liberec - Mlada

4 Applus IDIADA: Who we are and what we do Applus IDIADA is an engineering partner to the automotive industry providing complete solutions for product development projects worldwide. International presence (as of 10 th July, 2018) Brazil 134 São Paulo - Betim Curitiba - Tatuí China 201 Shanghai - Beijing Changchun - Chongqing Main Centres for Engineering, Testing and Homologation India 168 Pune - Chennai New Dehli UK 45 Cambridge - Nuneaton Guangzhou - Liuzhou Qingdao - Shenzhen Zhaoyuan USA 30 Detroit - Los Angeles Czech Republic 236 Hradec Králové - Brno Liberec - Mlada Boleslav Germany 129 Ingolstadt - Frankfurt Munich - Stuttgart Wolfsburg Aichi Bangkok Bologna Brussels Erbusco Total: people Branch offices 141 people Gothenburg Leini Poznan Istanbul Lukang Pretoria Jakarta Nizhny Novgorod Puebla Košice Paris Riyadh Kuala Lumpur Penang Seoul Togliatti Tokyo Spain Barcelona - Headquarters & Main Technical Center Granada - Madrid Mojácar - Pamplona Vigo

Concept Prototype Series 15+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Suspension Design VD CAE Development Vehicle dynamics simulation

5 Applus IDIADA: Who we are and what we do SUSPENSION AND VEHICLE DYNAMICS TEAM Multi-disciplinary international team supporting customers in the development and validation of the Vehicle Dynamics performance. Concept Prototype Series 15+ YEARS OF EXPERIENCE Suspension Design VD CAE Development Vehicle dynamics simulation Chassis functional development Suspension design support R&H objective testing Subjective tuning & evaluation Chassis Test rigs Tyre testing & modelling

6 Background Vehicle Dynamics Ride / Comfort simulations: IDIADA has gathered significant experience in the field of handling, comfort and durability simulations in Virtual Proving Ground (VPG). Require a HiFi MBS model including: Flexible bodies Dynamics properties of rubber elements (e.g. bushes, engine mounts) Friction modelling (e.g. Ball joints, steering column and rack) Ride tire models (e.g. FTire, CD-Tire) High Resolution road (e.g. CRG road)

due to Flexible bodies. Model stability is low due to high dynamics states.

7 Background Main problem: Simulation time is too high! Best scenario: x150 real time Worst scenario: x600 real time Key factors for this performance: Number of DoF is very high due to Flexible bodies. Model stability is low due to high dynamics states. Definition of solver settings (tolerances, step size, etc.). Complex dynamic components and frequency dependent elements. Driver model struggle to follow a path in the uneven road. Durability cycle: 5 km 25 hours Comfort tracks: 2 km 10 hours

8 Content 01_ BACKGROUND 02_ OBJECTIVES 03_ ACTIVITIES 04_ RESULTS 05_ CONCLUSIONS 06_ FUTURE WORK

Objectives Define a different simulation MBS code (SIMPACK), potentially better for

New OEMs are open to adopt new solutions if they are more efficient.

More structured and customizable single Database concept.

9 Objectives Define a different simulation MBS code (SIMPACK), potentially better for VPG simulations: Same level of correlation as current IDIADA s MBS code. Reduced simulation times. Potential advantages of SIMPACK: Many OEMs are using SIMPACK already. New OEMs are open to adopt new solutions if they are more efficient. Friendliness of the GUI and Wizard environment. More structured and customizable single Database concept. Faster and more stable solver. Efficient to run complex DOEs or automatic optimization. More appropriate for development of active systems in SiL / MiL. RealTime capable solver available. Potentially ready to be use in a full-scale Driving Simulator.

10 Content 01_ BACKGROUND 02_ OBJECTIVES 03_ ACTIVITIES 04_ RESULTS 05_ CONCLUSIONS 06_ FUTURE WORK

Activities A project is structured to evaluate this new simulation setup,

development (Generate missing info from an already validated MBS model) 1

model Simulation model build (Generate corresponding Simpack model and

model generation Effort required to set up each simulation scenario Level

11 Activities A project is structured to evaluate this new simulation setup, based in 3 main activities: Project requirements: SIMPACK database development (Generate missing info from an already validated MBS model) 1 engineer with Simpack expertise 1 Simpack demo license 1 validated MBS model Simulation model build (Generate corresponding Simpack model and validate it using the same tyres) Analysis of results Effort required for model generation Effort required to set up each simulation scenario Level of correlation with respect to the validated MBS model. Simulation stability Simulation times

Activity 1: SIMPACK database development SIMPACK database

interface: Validated MBS vehicle model Validated MBS loadcases /

the missing information needed to model the validated MBS model

12 Activity 1: SIMPACK database development SIMPACK database development Development of templates for SIMPACK Wizard interface: Validated MBS vehicle model Validated MBS loadcases / scenarios Generation into the SIMPACK automotive database of all the missing information needed to model the validated MBS model SIMPACK Wizard Model Components Submodels Scenario Loadcase Simulation model build

13 Activity 1: SIMPACK database development SIMPACK database development Templates developed for the vehicle model to be correlated: Validated MBS model Damper Strut for McPherson Flexible Control blade attachments Complete EPAS system (CEPAS / REPAS) Steering non-linear friction and compliance elements SIMPACK Wizard Simulation model build

developed for the loadcases to be correlate

Handling SDNA Open Loop LC (custom profiles

14 Activity 1: SIMPACK database development SIMPACK database development Templates developed for the loadcases to be correlate with validated MBS scenarios: Full KnC LC Handling SDNA Open Loop LC (custom profiles for Steering / Velocity) Validated MBS scenario Ride / Durability LC (custom profiles *.crg/*.rdf) SIMPACK Wizard Simulation model build

15 Activity 2: Simulation model build Simulation model build Generate SIMPACK model in Wizard using validated data Set the same conditions for the scenarios Run simulations Analysis of results

16 Content 01_ BACKGROUND 02_ OBJECTIVES 03_ ACTIVITIES 04_ RESULTS 05_ CONCLUSIONS 06_ FUTURE WORK

Activity 3: Analysis of results Effort required for model generation Effort required to set up each simulation scenario Level of correlation with respect to the validated MBS model Simulation

17 Activity 3: Analysis of results Effort required for model generation Effort required to set up each simulation scenario Level of correlation with respect to the validated MBS model Simulation stability Simulation times Once the templates are created, the effort required for model generation and simulation scenario setup is similar in both softwares, but SIMPACK Wizard seems more organized and structured for non-expert MBS users and the GUI is more friendly to use with customized comments and documentation pages. Structured organization is more clear in SIMPACK Custom comments and documentation Easy to use GUI for SIMPACK Wizard

18 Activity 3: Analysis of results Effort required for model generation Effort required to set up each simulation scenario Level of correlation with respect to the validated MBS model Simulation stability Simulation times The level of correlation between both models was satisfactory, showing a close match in the results from KnC FRONT AXLE REAR AXLE

19 Activity 3: Analysis of results Effort required for model generation Effort required to set up each simulation scenario Level of correlation with respect to the validated MBS model Simulation stability Simulation times Ride / Comfort and Durability simulations were used to compare simulation times and stability, in this case, the correlation was accurate enough with respect to the validated MBS model and the SIMPACK model.

20 Activity 3: Analysis of results Effort required for model generation Effort required to set up each simulation scenario Level of correlation with respect to the validated MBS model Simulation stability Simulation times Solver times comparison (2 CPU s threads): * It was not possible to simulate PAVE on the other MBS code. ** SIMPACK was not able to solve a 120mm KERB using FTire. RealTime factors (Elapsed Time) SIMPACK Other MBS code U_Shape (Ftire) x106 x147 Badly Maintain Road (Ftire) x76 x154 Belgian blocks (Ftire) x90 *N/A Kerb strike 100mm (Ftire) x86 x109 Kerb strike 120mm (Ftire) **N/A x112 Kerb strike 150mm (MF) x43 x88

21 Results: Some remarks Some remarks have to be mention in the scope of this project: The time allocation was just enough for a basic correlation, leaving some elements to be modelled which will improve the accuracy of the results: o o o o o o o FTire mass was not removed from the wheel mass when running the simulation with this type of tire in 110/210 components. It was not an option to run a non-rotating driveline, so the driveshafts were missing in SIMPACK. The last element of the SIMBEAM ARB was not modelled as rigid massless in SIMPACK. Aerodynamic forces for lift / downforce were missing in SIMPACK. Non-linearity stiffness of damper piston and rod guide was not modelled in SIMPACK. Non-linearity compliance of wheel hub bearing was not modelled in SIMPACK. For some KnC events, the equilibrium condition for the model was slightly different between the validated MBS scenario and SIMPACK. Also, due to this short time allocation, it was not possible to explore more solver settings for particular loadcases in SIMPACK which leave some room for improvement. Also, it was not possible to study the parallelization capability for both solvers.

22 Content 01_ BACKGROUND 02_ OBJECTIVES 03_ ACTIVITIES 04_ RESULTS 05_ CONCLUSIONS 06_ FUTURE WORK

Conclusions SIMPACK is highly customizable to the customer and very powerful as long as high skill MBS engineers are

Its readiness for use is quite limited using the default database in order to produce results since the first day and it

Once the templates are created, the effort required for model generation and simulation scenario setup is similar in both

23 Conclusions SIMPACK is highly customizable to the customer and very powerful as long as high skill MBS engineers are available to develop the automotive database. Its readiness for use is quite limited using the default database in order to produce results since the first day and it requires expert MBS engineers to make it ready for use. Once the templates are created, the effort required for model generation and simulation scenario setup is similar in both softwares, but SIMPACK Wizard seems more organized and structured for non-expert users. SIMPACK GUI is more friendly to use with customized comments and documentation pages, also the SIMPACK Post-processor is easier to interact and very powerful, make it more usable and effective for the user.

24 Conclusions Accuracy of the results has to be fully correlated with measurement data but it has been proven that it is at least at the same level of accuracy as the other MBS code. SIMPACK is by average 60% faster to solve, ranging from 30% to more than 100% in some cases. Meaning a higher efficiency for running complex simulations as Ride / Comfort or Durability. SIMPACK solver stability seems higher than the other MBS code, as it is able to solve very unstable models and it only failed to solve one test due to FTire solver stability. The solver from the other MBS code seems to struggle more if the scenario is not perfectly set with the right initial conditions. Finally, the availability of a RealTime solver in SIMPACK, make it ideal for Driving Simulator applications, keeping the high fidelity modelling of a MBS vehicle model and the capacity of change parameters between tests easily.

25 Content 01_ BACKGROUND 02_ OBJECTIVES 03_ ACTIVITIES 04_ RESULTS 05_ CONCLUSIONS 06_ FUTURE WORK

Future work Tyre models Tyre models are frequently limiting

capable version of the same tyre model, it can be evaluated

comprehensive Automotive Database for customers, to be ready

solver to be similar as the standard solver and evaluate the

26 Future work Tyre models Tyre models are frequently limiting the simulation speed and also the stability of its solver can compromise the results. If SIMPACK can supply a CD-Tire / FTire Real Time (RT) capable version of the same tyre model, it can be evaluated too. SIMPACK Automotive Database Development of a comprehensive Automotive Database for customers, to be ready for use with SIMPACK Wizard without the need of modifying the templates. SIMPACK RealTime (RT) solver Study the robustness of the RT solver to be similar as the standard solver and evaluate the performance of the RT model after simplifying some elements to reach a realtime capability. RT solver is a key feature for Driving Simulator and SiL / HiL applications.

27 Thank you for your kind attention

28 Applus IDIADA Headquarters and Main Technical Centre L Albornar PO Box 20 E Santa Oliva (Tarragona) Spain T F idiada@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Belgium T (Brussels) idiada_belgium@idiada.com Applus IDIADA France T +33 (0) (Paris) idiada_france@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Italy T (Turin / Maranello) idiada_italia@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Saudi Arabia T (Riyadh) idiada_gcc@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Taiwan T (Lukang) idiada_taiwan@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Brazil T (São Paulo) T (Betim) T (Curitiba) T (Tatuí) idiada_brasil@idiada.com Applus IDIADA China T +86 (21) (Shanghai) T (Beijing) T (Changchun) T (Chongqing) T (Guangzhou) T +86 (772) (Liuzhou) T +86 (772) (Qingdao) T +86 (755) (Shenzhen) T (Zhaoyuan) idiada_china@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Czech Republic T (Brno) T (Hradec Králové) T (Liberec) T (Mladá Boleslav) info@idiada.cz Applus IDIADA Germany T +49 (0) (Ingolstadt) T +49 (0) (Frankfurt) T +49 (0) (Munich) T +49 (0) (Stuttgart) T +49 (0) (Wolfsburg) idiada_germany@idiada.com Applus IDIADA India T (Chennai) T (New Delhi) T (Pune) idiada_india@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Indonesia T (Jakarta) idiada_indonesia@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Iran T (Tehran) idiada_iran@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Japan T +81 (0) (Tokyo) T +81 (0) (Aichi) idiada_japan@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Malaysia T (Kuala Lumpur) T (Penang) idiada_malaysia@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Mexico T +52 (1) (Puebla) idiada_mexico@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Poland T (Poznan) idiada_polska@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Russia T +7 (831) (Nizhny Novgorod) T +7 (831) (Togliatti) idiada_russia@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Scandinavia T +46 (0) (Gothenburg) idiada_scandinavia@idiada.com Applus IDIADA South Africa T (Pretoria) idiada_southafrica@idiada.com Applus IDIADA South Korea T (Seoul) idiada@idiada.co.kr Applus IDIADA Spain T (Santa Oliva) T (Las Palmas) T (Madrid) T (Mojácar) T (Murcia) T (Pamplona) T (Vigo) idiada@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Thailand T (Bangkok) idiada_thailand@idiada.com Applus IDIADA Turkey T (Istanbul) idiada_turkey@idiada.com Applus IDIADA UK T (Cambridge) T (Nuneaton) idiada_uk@idiada.com Applus IDIADA USA T (Detroit)

Report to GRRF from ambassador to IWVTA

Informal document GRRF-82-35 82 nd GRRF, 20-23 September 2016, Agenda item 10 Report to GRRF from ambassador to IWVTA Ignacio Lafuente Summary 01_ Meeting calendar 02_ List of highlighted documents 03_