2. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 CAE Design approach to develop applicative solutions in automotive polymer based systems CAE Design approach to develop applicative solutions in automotive polymer based systems M. Chiara Ferrari, Filippo Gallieri Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 M. Chiara Ferrari, Filippo Gallieri Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 First Southern European Technology Conference

3. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 DESIGN & CAE Business Support Tool to develop applicative solutions in automotive polymer based systems DESIGN & CAE Business Support Tool to develop applicative solutions in automotive polymer based systems

4. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Design & CAE: a powerful tool in the Business Support Computer Aided Engineering Testing & validation Design & CAE: a powerful tool in the Business Support Computer Aided Engineering Testing & validation DesignDesign

5. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Process tools and conditions process influence on part CAE TOOLS Simulation computer calculation replacing qualitative/empirical approach Product actual service conditions main variables/part performances

6. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 CAE ADVANTAGES New material/processes New material/processes Design solutions Tests (homologation...) Production Process

7. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 New material/processes: -no process tool building during the preliminary evaluation phase -critical issues investigated by simulation Design solutions: -no prototype building up -several solutions evaluated and compared in short time: - materials - mechanical constraints - geometry CAE ADVANTAGES

8. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 CAE ADVANTAGES Tests (homologation...): - the number is dramatically reduced; -main tests are focused on the final solution; -possible flops are predicted and solved on the computer Production Process: -avoiding tools judged inadequate once already set up -part quality: -part performances foreseen in the design phase are respected - controlled defects due to process - time/costs are optimised

9. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Supporting to Montell product development - property profile for specific applications -directions for improvement Driving the customer to Montell materials -advanced properties -best material/design system Establishing Montell as a leading supplier to the technical industry: -differentiated offering (product and service) CAE & MONTELL

10. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 CAE: A KEY FACTOR FOR Internal: new material/application development External: penetration into the market R & D Business

11. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Car dashboards: from new concepts to first applicative projects

12. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 New concepts on dashboards OBJECTIVE: cost reduction OBJECTIVE: cost reduction Dashboard system complexity causes a big influence of design (shape, assembly solutions) on final performances. Dashboard system complexity causes a big influence of design (shape, assembly solutions) on final performances. Computer simulation in the early feasibility stage to compare solutions (materials, design, thickness) Computer simulation in the early feasibility stage to compare solutions (materials, design, thickness)

13. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 New concepts on dashboards: creep as a key issue Cycle: heating to 85°C, 22 hours creep, cooling to 23°C Example of Z displacement distribution after 22 hours creep at 85°C and cooling to room temperature Cycle: heating to 85°C, 22 hours creep, cooling to 23°C Example of Z displacement distribution after 22 hours creep at 85°C and cooling to room temperature example: Renault X76 customer: Allibert

14. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 New concepts on dashboards: creep as a key issue Cycle: heating to 85°C, 22 hours creep, cooling to 23°C Displacement comparison of selected points Cycle: heating to 85°C, 22 hours creep, cooling to 23°C Displacement comparison of selected points MaterialBR131GBR131GCR250FCR1152F Density 1.14 1.14 1.04 0.97 Thickness of the dashboard 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.8 Upper right corner 0.85 0.79 1.25 2.25 of central console Top of instrument cover 1.21 1.08 1.27 1.73 (“visière”) Bottom of glove box 2.35 2.43 2.43 2.45 Local relative displacement 0.70 0.90 0.36 0.56 in right horizontal area MaterialBR131GBR131GCR250FCR1152F Density 1.14 1.14 1.04 0.97 Thickness of the dashboard 2.8 2.4 2.8 2.8 Upper right corner 0.85 0.79 1.25 2.25 of central console Top of instrument cover 1.21 1.08 1.27 1.73 (“visière”) Bottom of glove box 2.35 2.43 2.43 2.45 Local relative displacement 0.70 0.90 0.36 0.56 in right horizontal area

15. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 STRATEGY: concurrent engineering and simulation based design offered to selected partners STRATEGY: concurrent engineering and simulation based design offered to selected partners

16. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Montell Design Support: - Static behaviour - Long term thermal stability (thermal/creep simulations) - Head impact simulation (ECE R 21 Standard) - Dynamic behaviour (Vibration) - Moldfilling simulation for all dashboard components Applicative project for dashboard development grades Montell Design Support: - Static behaviour - Long term thermal stability (thermal/creep simulations) - Head impact simulation (ECE R 21 Standard) - Dynamic behaviour (Vibration) - Moldfilling simulation for all dashboard components Applicative project for dashboard development grades

17. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Part performances (static, thermal/creep, head impact, vibration) main phases : Preliminary feasibility calculation with simplified assumptions: highlight of general behaviour, does it work? Detailed calculation: -problem solving and optimisation on single components -evaluation of different material solutions Rework of design according to CAE guidelines (customer) Possible last calculation on final design Part performances (static, thermal/creep, head impact, vibration) main phases : Preliminary feasibility calculation with simplified assumptions: highlight of general behaviour, does it work? Detailed calculation: -problem solving and optimisation on single components -evaluation of different material solutions Rework of design according to CAE guidelines (customer) Possible last calculation on final design

18. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Dashboard: Head impact ECE R 21 IMPACT POSITIONS

19. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Fig 18 Dashboard: Head impact ECE R 21

20. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 40  C 85  C 16 H 3 H 6 H Dashboard: Thermal cycle AF

21. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Dashboard: Thermal cycle AF

22. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Dashboard: Thermal cycle AF

23. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Dashboard Component: Manufacturing process design Dashboard Component: Manufacturing process design

24. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Dashboard : Manufacturing process design Process simulation: main phases Preliminary calculation: -choice of best manufacturing process (injection molding?, traditional? sequential?) -evaluation of different materials -evaluation of different gating solutions Final calculation: -runner system balancing -investigation on process parameters influence (packing) Special calculations for critical parts (injection molding): -cooling -warpage

25. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Coiffe & runner system finite element model 1 Dashboard: Manufacturing process design

26. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Runner system dimensions [mm] Cold sprues G 1, G 3, G 4, G 5, G 6 Ø= 6 to 10 G1G1 G2G2 G4G4 G5G5 G3G3 Ø= 20-8 i) Ø= 14-6 ii)Ø= 22-8 Ø= 24-8 Ø= 20-8 Ø= 20 Cold runners G 1, G 3, G 4, G 5, G 6 Ø= 10 G 1, G 2, G 3, G 5, G 6 Gates (width x length x tk) thin area 20 x 2 x 1.8 thick area20-0 x 8 x 8 G6G6 Ø= 20 Ø= 24-8 Ø= 20-8 G 2, Cold sprue Ø= 5 to 8 G 2, Cold runner Ø= 8 G 4 Gate (width x length x tk) thin area 120 x 2 x 1.8 thick area120 x 8 x 8 i) Ø= 16 ii)Ø= 20 This is the only difference between type i) and type ii) Dashboard: Manufacturing process design

27. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Fill time 6-8 sec Melt temperature 250 deg.C Mold temperature 40 deg.C No Restraints Clamp force 1300 Tonne Max. Pressure Molding machine parameters & Variable limits for PP Variable limits for PP: Max. Pressure= 90  100 MPa Max shear stress= 0.25 MPa Max. shear rate = 100000 1/s Ddashboard: Manufacturing process design

28. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Fill time [s] & Weld lines Ddashboard: Manufacturing process design

29. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Pressure at end of filling [MPa] Dashboard: Manufacturing process design

30. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Clamp force trend [Tonne] Max value = 740 Tonne Dashboard: Manufacturing process design

31. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Dashboard: Manufacturing process design

32. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 HSBM Thin wall bumper concept CAE support to concept development Structural performances Molding technology Evaluation of thickness reduction feasibility and design optimization Evaluation of thickness reduction feasibility and design optimization e.g. thermal/creep behaviour e.g. sequential injection CAE simulations as a key issue

33. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Thermal/creep cycle simulation on bumpers High temperature effect Temporary dilatation due to CLTE Possible permanent deformations due to dilatation and weight Temporary dilatation due to CLTE Possible permanent deformations due to dilatation and weight To allow evaluation of material behaviour and design changes effect: Simulation of the whole cycle (heating, creep, cooling) Material nonlinearities considered (CLTE vs. temperature, stress/strain vs. temperature, creep vs. time, temp., stress) Temperature distribution: constant (e.g.oven) or variable along the surface and across thickness (e.g. sunload effect) Simulation of the whole cycle (heating, creep, cooling) Material nonlinearities considered (CLTE vs. temperature, stress/strain vs. temperature, creep vs. time, temp., stress) Temperature distribution: constant (e.g.oven) or variable along the surface and across thickness (e.g. sunload effect)

34. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Thermal/creep cycle simulation on bumpers Local temporary deformation during high temperature cycle Local temporary deformation during high temperature cycle

35. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 Thermal/creep cycle simulation on bumpers Local final deformation after high temperature cycle and cooling Local final deformation after high temperature cycle and cooling

36. DESIGN & CAE ACTIVITY Montecarlo, June 7-9 2000 ! CAE: A KEY FACTOR FOR MONTELL Design IdeaPreliminary Design Prototype Flops PRODUCTION IN CUSTOMER WORLD FINAL DESIGN MONTELL DESIGN & CAE WORLD OUT IMPROVEMENTS PROBLEM SOLVING DEVELOPMENT MATERIAL CHOICE Static Impact Thermal Creep Fatigue Vibration Injection molding Gas-assisted inj. Molding Gas-assisted ThermoformingThermoforming Blow molding ExtrusionExtrusion New material