Crashworthiness Workshop - Altair HTC 2012

Innovation Intelligence®

HTC 2012 : Crashworthiness Training

Shan Bala

Program Manager

May 15, 2012

Copyright © 2012 Altair Engineering, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2012 Altair Engineering, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential. All rights reserved.

Agenda

1. TeamCenter-HyperMesh Integration for Assembly – Shan Bala

2. Forming Results Initialization – Subir Roy

3. Multidomain in Radioss – Jean-Pierre Bobineau


TeamCenter-HyperMesh Integration Overview

Part#:

YT29-89112081-9901002

3

SIEMENS

TEAMCENTER

Teamcenter Side

HyperWorks Side

Import PLMXML

Batchmesh

Assemble

Connections

Export HM/decks

Export PLMXML

PLM XML EXPORT

PLM XML EXPORT

© 2009. Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software Inc. All rights reserved.

Solution Elements


En

vir

on

men

t P

rocess

Co

nfi

gu

rati

on

PLMXML

Import

Teamcenter

PLMXML

Transfer Mode

PLMXML

File

Working

Directory HYPERMESH

CAD

Translation

PLMXML

Export

Post

Operations

HYPERMESH

Mapping Table

Teamcenter

Data Model

PLMXML

Export HM

HM

Scri

pt

TC

PLMXML

Import

TC

HM

Solution Elements


Configuration

- The target is to use only one PLMXML

Transfer Mode for all use cases.

- The HYPERMESH Mapping Table is a

configuration file available in the

HYPERMESH directory. This file is common

to all sites and can only be modified by the

administrator.

Process

- The user should be able to start manually

each process independently either from

Teamcenter or from the working directory.

- The same process is applied for all use

cases.

- The HYPERMESH-PLMXML Import and

HYPERMESH-CAD Translation processes

may be considered as one unique process

Environment

- The Working Directory is the temporary

location where Teamcenter and

HYPERMESH are exchanging the files.

- The PLMXML File exported by Teamcenter

is overwritten by HYPERMESH at the

HYPERMESH-PLMXML Export process after

a copy of the original file has been created.

Solution Elements - Details


En

vir

on

men

t P

rocess

Co

nfi

gu

rati

on

PLMXML

Import

Teamcenter

PLMXML

Transfer Mode

PLMXML

File

Working

Directory HYPERMESH

CAD

Translation

PLMXML

Export

Post

Operations

HYPERMESH

Mapping Table

Teamcenter

Data Model

PLMXML

Export HM

HM

HM

Scri

pt

TC

PLMXML

Import

TC

Solution Elements Teamcenter – PLMXML Export


En

vir

on

men

t P

rocess

Co

nfi

gu

rati

on

PLMXML

Import

Teamcenter

PLMXML

Transfer Mode

PLMXML

File

Working

Directory HYPERMESH

CAD

Translation

PLMXML

Export

Post

Operations

HYPERMESH

Mapping Table

Teamcenter

Data Model

PLMXML

Export HM

HM

HM

Scri

pt

TC

PLMXML

Import

TC

Solution Elements Teamcenter – PLMXML Export


En

vir

on

men

t P

rocess

Co

nfi

gu

rati

on

PLMXML

Import

Teamcenter

PLMXML

Transfer Mode

PLMXML

File

Working

Directory HYPERMESH

CAD

Translation

PLMXML

Export

Post

Operations

HYPERMESH

Mapping Table

Teamcenter

Data Model

PLMXML

Export HM

HM

HM

Scri

pt

TC

PLMXML

Import

TC

Solution Elements HyperMesh – CAD Translation


En

vir

on

men

t P

rocess

Co

nfi

gu

rati

on

PLMXML

Import

Teamcenter

PLMXML

Transfer Mode

PLMXML

File

Working

Directory HYPERMESH

CAD

Translation

PLMXML

Export

Post

Operations

HYPERMESH

Mapping Table

Teamcenter

Data Model

PLMXML

Export HM

HM

HM

Scri

pt

TC

PLMXML

Import

TC

Solution Elements HyperMesh – PLMXML Export


En

vir

on

men

t P

rocess

Co

nfi

gu

rati

on

PLMXML

Import

Teamcenter

PLMXML

Transfer Mode

PLMXML

File

Working

Directory HYPERMESH

CAD

Translation

PLMXML

Export

Post

Operations

HYPERMESH

Mapping Table

Teamcenter

Data Model

PLMXML

Export HM

HM

HM

Scri

pt

TC

PLMXML

Import

TC

Solution Elements Script – Post Operations


En

vir

on

men

t P

rocess

Co

nfi

gu

rati

on

PLMXML

Import

Teamcenter

PLMXML

Transfer Mode

PLMXML

File

Working

Directory HYPERMESH

CAD

Translation

PLMXML

Export

Post

Operations

HYPERMESH

Mapping Table

Teamcenter

Data Model

PLMXML

Export HM

HM

HM

Scri

pt

TC

PLMXML

Import

TC

Solution Elements TeamCenter – PLMXML Import


Copyright © 2012 Altair Engineering, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential. All rights reserved.


Part#:

YT29-89112081-9901002

13

SIEMENS

TEAMCENTER

Teamcenter Side

HyperWorks Side

Import PLMXML

Batchmesh

Assemble

Connections

Export HM/decks

Export PLMXML

PLM XML EXPORT

PLM XML EXPORT




Part#:

YT29-89112081-9901002

14

SIEMENS

TEAMCENTER

Teamcenter Side

HyperWorks Side

Import PLMXML

Batchmesh

Assemble

Connections

Export HM/decks

Export PLMXML

PLM XML EXPORT


Product Demo

Demo


Agenda




Copyright © 2012 Altair Engineering, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential. All rights reserved.Copyright © 2012 Altair Engineering, Inc. Proprietary and Confidential. All rights reserved.

Agenda





Automated Forming Results Initialization for Full Vehicle Crash Models

Subir RoyDirector – Industry SolutionsMay 15, 2012


Outline

Motivation

Options

Implementation

Validation

Application

Conclusion


Motivation

1) Enable seamless incorporation of stamping effects into structural CAE to improve accuracy

2) Leverage the effect of work hardening in stamping for possible weight reduction


Option 1

• Map incremental analysis results

• Use accurate incremental stamping analysis with adaptive mesh followed by mapping of results to structural mesh

• Need stamping experts to define a feasible process which is difficult at the early product feasibility phase

• Time consuming to run large number of parts

• Possibility of error from mapping between somewhat different geometries


Option 2

• Use inverse analysis directly on structural mesh

• Use One Step stamping analysis on the structural mesh and directly include the stamping results with the structural model

• Addendum effect needs to be approximated with edge boundary condition

• Possible to run large number of parts within a short time

• Accurate enough for crash analysis


One Step vs Incremental (Numisheet 2005 part)

Incremental 1-step


Validation with Test Data (PSA, Altair EHTC 2010)

Test

With stampingTest


Validation with Test Data (PSA, Altair EHTC 2010)


PSA Peugeot Citroën: HyperWorks Improves Development Process

Challenge: Define a new simulation process development that includes accurate component data(thickness, residual strains, etc.)

Solution: • Use HyperForm and RADIOSS in product

development• Evaluate the impact of the manufacturing process onto

the component formability• Seamlessly include forming results into RADIOSS

crash simulations

Business Impact:• Reduce overall development time• Get a better correlation with test results• Improve product quality and process robustness

“We are in the position to predict crash results via simulation much better than in the past. Building on this approach will lead to sustainable time savings and better products for our customers.”

– Fabien Beda, Senior Engineer Crash & Fluid Simulations PSA Peugeot Citroën

Different deformation pattens (Reference, Without and With Blankholder) at 0,008 Sec


Workflow


User Interface

I. GUI Mode

• User remains in the model setup environment (HyperMesh/HyperCrash)• Stamping analysis conducted in background on user’s machine• Results posted for review • Include files created at the final step• Solvers supported: RADIOSS and LSDYNA• Demo

II. Batch Mode

• User provides the structural model and list of parts (from any pre-processor)• Stamping analysis launched in batch mode on a cluster• Include files created at the final step• Solvers supported: RADIOSS and LSDYNA• Demo


User Interface (HyperMesh)

Select parts to initialize Review results


User Interface (HyperCrash)

Select initialization option Review parts initialized


Features

1) Material properties interpreted from crash model

2) Addendum effect via edge Blankholder force via following options:a. Optimum FLC: Iteratively optimizes the blank holder force based on FLC to

minimize failure b. Qualitative: Low, Medium, High, Nonec. Optional: Cut off plastic strain to eliminate local hot spots

3) Automatic undercut check parts invalid for stamping

4) Automatic hole filling

5) Run in parallel mode


Materials Supported

• LSDYNA

• MATL24• MATL33• MATL36• MATL37• MATL39• MATL81• MATL98• MATL122• MATL123• MATL133

RADIOSS

• M2_PLAS_JOHNS_ZERIL• M3_HYDPLA• M4_HYD_JCOOK• M22_DAMA • MLAW23 • M27_PLAS_BRIT • M32_HILL• M36_PLAS_TAB• M43_HILL_TAB• M44_COWPER• M48_ZHAO• M57_BARLAT3


Case Study 1: Ford Taurus Frontal Crash Model

Plastic strains from forming


LSDYNA Frontal Impact Crash Results

Without stamping With stamping


Case Study 2: Dodge Neon Side Impact Model

Plastic strains from forming


RADIOSS Side Impact Crash Results

Without stamping With stamping


Conclusion

Incorporating stamping data can improve the correlation of structural

CAE models for stiffness and deformation modes

The magnitude of the influence of stamping on structural CAE

depends on the loading path

Standardization of structural CAE processes with stamping data for full

vehicle models is now feasible

Case studies to continue for NVH and Durability


Results Mapper 11.0

• General purpose mapping tool inside HyperCrash• Map thickness, plastic strain, stresses, fiber orientation• Read forming data from Radioss, Dyna, AutoForm• Write mapped data to Radioss, Dyna, Abaqus input format• Map results between solids, hydro-formed parts• Handle symmetry• Fill holes • Batch process: Save and Replay• Demo

Forming mesh Crash mesh


Thank you!

HyperForm 1-step solver based stamping results initialization being used successfully at many OEMs and suppliers globally


Agenda



3. Multi-Domain in RADIOSS – Jean-Pierre Bobineau


Multi-Domain Approach to Parallel Computations in Structure Dynamics using RADIOSS

Jean-Pierre Bobineau

May 15, 2012


Multi-Domain approach to parallel computations

Facts

Method

The target of the Multi-Domain approach is to reduce the needed CPU time in order to

compute models with very different mesh sizes needing very different computation times.

The goal is to reduce the elapsed time without losing accuracy.

One of the challenges is to compute: cast, extruded and/or plastic parts (e.g. meshed with

Tetra10 solid elements) inside a “classical” full vehicle crash model in order to predict the

rupture mode of these specific detailed parts and their effects at global model scale.

The idea is to replace this global model by physically equivalent sub-domains, separating

parts with different minimal time step. Each sub domain is resolved as a distinct RADIOSS

model using its own time step, the force and momentum transfers between them being

calculated by a separate program handling stability constraints

• Time step discrepancy is a major bottleneck in explicit computations

• The smallest time step affects the performance of the whole model



Time step = dt_a Time step = dt_b Time step = dt_c



Synchronization time



Radioss V10 – multiple starter input file (Classical approach)

• Each domain is built as a separate complete RADIOSS model using its own

complete input files.

• The RADIOSS runs are completely independent and do not communicate

directly with each other. Each one is using its own time step.

• The time step of each domain is arbitrary but to allow the best optimization

gain it should be significantly different from each other.

• All communication, data transfers, time step synchronization, equilibrium and

stability conditions on the domain frontiers are managed by the master program.

The main interest of this strategy is that each model is independent and may be replaced

by another one. This allows a modular approach for modeling, for example testing runs

with equivalent domains with different mesh size (multigrid approach). Reason why this

approach is still useful and is kept in Radioss V11.



Multi-Domain in

Version 10

Rad2rad

Radioss

engine 1

dt_a

Radioss

starter 1

Radioss

starter 2

Radioss

starter 3

P1_0000.rad P2_0000.rad P3_0000.rad

Radioss

engine 2

dt_b

Radioss

engine 3

dt_c

P1_0000.rst P2_0000.rst P3_0000.rst

input.dat



Radioss V11 – single starter input file format ( sub-domain approach)

• One drawback of the classical approach is that it implies additional work for

the user to manually build several independent input files.

• Furthermore it can become very long, difficult and a source of errors when the

small domains are extracted from large and complex models like full vehicle.

• The idea of the new approach in Radioss version 11 is to simplify the task of

the user by building sub-domains automatically :

• Only one starter input is now required including the entire model, like a

classical Radioss computation.

• The user only has to specify the parts of the model that he wants to place

in sub-domains.

• The starter automatically extracts the specified domains from the full

model and generates one restart file for each domain.



Multi-Domain in

Version 11

dt_a dt_b dt_c



New subdomain approach : definition of the subdomains

The subdomains are specified by parts

/SUBDOMAIN/subdomain_Id

subdomain_title

ID_part1 ID_part2 ... ID_partn

Where:

- ID_part are the Id of the parts that are in the sub-domain

- subdomain_Id is the domain identifier.

- subdomain_title is the sub-domain name

Radioss Engine input file

In Radioss V11 as in V10 an engine input file is required for each domain and in

order to activate the multi-domain coupling these files must contain the following

command line:

/RAD2RAD/ON



can be used to connect:

– Shell nodes to Shell nodes

– Shell nodes to Solid nodes

– Solid nodes to Solid nodes

– Beam nodes to Beam nodes


PSA head impact v. windshield wiper motor

Model

Head impact :

PART1 : 13803 shell elements PART2 : 303648 shell elements

time step : 2.97e-7 sec [4.3%] [95.7%] time step : 8.00e-7 sec

Courtesy of PSA


---- MONO-DOMAIN

---- MULTI-DOMAIN

Note: In this case results quality is high also because there is small interaction between the 2 domains

Results quality

Head acceleration vs time



Head impact : scalability performances (elapsed time) :

Time step factor = (dt domain 1) / (dt domain2) = 2.6

Mono-domain = complete model with common time step

Speed UP = elapsed time Mono-domain / elapsed time Multi-domains

Case 1 : using synchronisation with total CPU number allocated to all processes

Case 2 : Case 1 + optimisation of MPI internal process communications (SPMD)

1 CPU 16 CPUs (2 nodes) 32 CPUs (4 nodes) 64 CPus

Monodomain 63500 s 5420 s 3470 s 2790 s

Multidomain case 1 27260 s

2740 s 2100 s

Multidomain case 2

- // -

2584 s 1670 s 1390 s

Speed up case 1 2.33 2.00 1.65

Speed up case 2 2.30 2.09 2.08 2.01



Coarse Mesh in 1.Domain:

Timestep = 5.0e-007 [s]

Refined Mesh in 2,Domain:

Timestep = 1.0e-007 [s]

t = 00.00 ms t = 80.00 ms

NEON Full Frontal with refined subframe


Application : Neon model

• Result

o The results are the same between the mono domain computed with a time step of 0.1ms

and the computation with sub-domain.

Rigid wall force

Internal

energy

Mono domain : 71700 s

Multi domains : 35100 s

Speedup of ~2

compared to the

Mono-Domain with

same (small) Time step

NEON Full Frontal with refined subframe



Conclusions


Open for questions…

• Jean-Pierre Bobineau

• Phone: (248) 709 09 42

• E-Mail: [email protected]

Technology

Crashworthiness Workshop - Altair HTC 2012