development of best practices & identification of breakthrough … · 2015-07-03 · 1 project...

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 1

PRIORITY [6.2] [SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORT]

012497AUTOSIM

Development of Best Practices & Identification

of Breakthrough Technologies in Automotive

Engineering Simulation

Final Activity Report

Period Covered from: 1st September 2005 to: 31st August 2008

Date of Report: October 08 Start Date of Project: 1st September 2005 Duration: 36 Months Project Co-Ordinator Name: T. Morris Project Co-Ordinator Organisation: NAFEMS

Reference Number PR3rep

Issue 1

Date October 2008



012497AUTOSIM

Table of Contents Page

Executive Summary................................................................................................................... 3

1 Project Objectives and Major Achievements During the Reporting Period........................ 8

1.1 Overview....................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Objectives and Achievements ...................................................................................... 8

2 Workpackage Progress .................................................................................................... 10

3 Consortium Management ................................................................................................. 14

3.1 Consortium Management Tasks and Achievements.................................................. 14

3.2 Contractors ................................................................................................................. 14

3.3 Project Timetable and Status ..................................................................................... 17

3.4 Co-ordination Activities............................................................................................... 18

Appendix 1 – Plan for using and disseminating the knowledge .............................................. 19



012497AUTOSIM

Executive Summary 1.1 The AUTOSIM Project The intent of AUTOSIM was to provide ideas to make more efficient use of engineering simulation techniques, particularly in structural analysis and computational fluid dynamics. AUTOSIM had 2 complementary aims: firstly to review Best Practices, and secondly, to identify the most promising potential Breakthrough Technologies. The consortium consisted of 32 companies (OEMs, Tier 1 + 2 suppliers, software developers, researchers and consultants). These objectives have been examined in three key technology areas (see Fig. 1.1):

• Integration of simulation into the design process

• Materials characterization

• Improved confidence in the use of simulation.

Fig. 1.1: The interrelationship of the selected three key technology areas – Integration, Confidence & Materials – on which AUTOSIM was focused

Whilst these 3 key technology areas are important by themselves they are not isolated but strongly connected to each other. Awareness Statement The participants of the AUTOSIM project recognize and acknowledge the importance of other topics as well, which could not be covered within the project due to limited time and funds. Examples are Durability, Computational Electromagnetics, Performance, Mechatronics, the Human Factor etc. In the subsequent chapters 1.2 – 1.4 each of the 3 key technology areas are highlighted by a short paragraph as well as by a characteristic figure.



012497AUTOSIM

1.2 “Integration” Within “Integration” up-front simulation is a key driving force behind today’s necessary paradigm shift in new product development. Conventional product development methods are too inefficient. The traditional “design-analyze-build & test” scenario will not remain competitive.

Fig. 1.2: Up-Front Simulation and related paradigm shift Today, leading organizations perform simulation at the concept stage to explore design alternatives, detect flaws, and improve product performance before a detailed design or a physical prototype is created (simulation drives design). 1.3 “Materials” Main obstacles in materials characterization in the concept design phase are missing decisions about material selection including missing relevant test data, insufficient and inaccurate geometry information, guidelines in terms of modeling techniques (Fig. 1.3) etc.

Fig. 1.3: Key Aspects of Materials Characterization (courtesy of Dr. Paul Wood, University of Warwick)



012497AUTOSIM

The quality of materials characterization will increase when development proceeds. But one needs to keep in mind that “simple material models” omitting important effects might cause wrong simulation results and therefore wrong design choices. This applies e.g. to material’s strain rate sensitivity in the prediction of crashworthiness behavior or the consideration of bifurcations. Involving suppliers in the earliest design phases might be crucial. Also “cost constraints” have to be acknowledged. Cost comprises of many aspects including data generation (testing, data capture and validation / QA) and material model development. 1.4 “Confidence” Confidence has a significant influence on the uptake and use of CAE models. It is reliant on good material information and is necessary for the successful integration of CAE within the design and engineering process. It is also dependent on the available time, resources and budget. Without confidence a CAE model has no obvious benefit or value.

Fig. 1.4: Foundations of CAE confidence (courtesy of Renault)

According to fig. 1.4, it is obvious that CAE confidence ifs influenced by a broad variety of topics. Based on discussions within the AUTOSIM consortium the items

• Physical model

• Human resources and organization

• Data validity

• Digital model have been prioritized and discussed in more detail. 1.5 How to move on? Perspectives and expectations have been discussed within the AUTOSIM project which need to be considered today and in the near future. There are lots of tasks which need to be fulfilled to become more efficient in terms of making key decisions more precisely and earlier. Some of them are listed under 1.5.1-1.5.7.

1.5.1 Efficient deployment of Digital Prototypes 1.5.2 Becoming faster in the Conceptual Design Phase 1.5.3 Clearly defined Materials Characterization Methodology 1.5.4 Accelerating the Model Preparation Phase 1.5.5 Robust Design and Complexity Management 1.5.6 Current Status and Future Trends in CFD 1.5.7 Design – to – Cost

Starting with item 1.5.1 this applies to streamline processes in a concurrent engineering environment using digital prototypes in an efficient way. “Up-front loading” will require a paradigm shift to do analysis earlier and faster and / or to leverage knowledge from previous designs using product- and simulation data management systems. The vision: simulation drives design (item 1.5.2).



012497AUTOSIM

A clearly defined materials characterization methodology would permit new materials (data and models) to be adopted with increased confidence (item 1.5.3). Model generation systems should provide capabilities for cleaning-up and de-featuring CAD geometry. It also should be possible to assemble and connect component models from different sources. The recognition and meshing of important features are required like boundary layer modeling for CFD. Polyhedral meshing contributes enormously to the ease of volume-mesh generation, accuracy and robustness of the CFD solution (item 1.5.4 and item 1.5.6). Multi-domain meshing is essential for certain types of multi-physics analysis such as conjugate-heat-transfer or fluid-structure interaction (fig. 1.5.1).

Fig. 1.5.1: Turbocharger compressor and turbine complete assembly with continuous multi-domain meshing incorporating fluid-side surface mesh extrusions as well as flow & thermal

solutions (courtesy of CD-adapco) Based on the results of stochastic simulations or multi-disciplinary optimization or test interactive process maps can be developed which give the user an integrated view of the degree of coupling, global robustness measures and complexity (item 1.5.5 and fig. 1.5.2). The intensity of correlation between input and output parameters can be highlighted by various means e.g. different colors, line characteristics and the distinction between direct and indirect correlation.



012497AUTOSIM

Fig. 1.5.2: Complexity Management using Decision Maps for various disciplines (courtesy of Ontonix)

Affordability is one of the key issues for design engineers and manufacturers of new car body models. Sometimes vehicle development projects failed to enter the production phase because cost could not meet the project financial targets. Likewise vehicle projects went into production with severe cost and manufacturing constraints but failed in the marketplace because of limited improvements in vehicle functionality or performance. Either case primarily is due to the lack of understanding of the cost and performance relationship and engineering alternatives during the vehicle development cycle (item 1.5.7). Summing up: in the future, CAE needs to take into account extended distributed development environments to address Product Life Cycle Management. Tools and Processes must be integrated, with the consideration given to the OEMs and Suppliers, recognizing their knowledge and resources.

Safety

Crashworthiness

Aerodynamics

NVH & handling

Based on the results of Stochastic Simulations or Multi-Disciplinary Optimization interactive Process Maps can be developed which give users an integrated and holistic view of:

• Interaction between disciplines

• Degrees of coupling

• Critical variables

• Global robustness measures

• Failure modes

• Complexity

Power & Transmission



012497AUTOSIM

1 Project Objectives and Major Achievements During the Reporting Period

1.1 Overview

AUTOSIM was conceived in order to co-ordinate activities within the European automotive industry and was aimed at improving both the quality of industrial applications of simulation technology and the level of confidence that can be placed in the computed results. Its principal objective was to collate and disseminate existing information and to facilitate the efficient exchange of experience and knowledge within, and between, different sectors of the automotive industry within the European Community.

1.2 Objectives and Achievements

To the above end, the project established a framework for the review, assessment, dissemination and follow-up of ongoing RTD activity. The key elements of this were;

• A Consortium Steering Committee (CSC), comprising two technology leaders (one for Best Practices and one for Breakthrough Technologies) and one rapporteur for each of the three Key Technology Themes (Materials, Integration and Confidence). The CSC also included the co-ordinator and assistant (technical) co-ordinator. This CSC met formally on nine occasions during the course of the project to review ongoing progress and refine details of the future work programme. In addition ad-hoc meetings of relevant personnel were convened as required to plan workshops.

• An interactive web-site, to facilitate exchange of information etc. supplemented by a network bulletin or newsletter.

• A series of technology-focused workshops in each of the 3 themes, to address immediate technological needs.

• Publishing a final printed report which contained all of the project findings in a highly readable and useful format, which was sent in hard copy format to approximately 1,000 organisations, and in electronic format to many more.

• Summarising the project findings in a webinar attended live by several hundred professionals and subsequently downloaded by others.

• Consulting with industry at large to ensure that the project findings were truly representative.

• Development of reports following the conclusion of each workshop meeting. Details of the workshops convened to date are given in Tables 1 to 3 below.

Table 1 Workshop Meetings to August 2006

Date Venue Attendees 17-18 Jan 2006

Barcelona 41

4-5 May 2006

Sonnenhausen 38



012497AUTOSIM

Table 2 Workshop Meetings from September 2006 to August 2007

Date Venue Attendees 23-24 Nov 2006

Lisbon 44

5-6 July 2007

Paris 38

Table 3 Workshop Meetings from September 2007 to August 2008

Date Venue Attendees 15-16 Nov 2007

Bilbao 36

22-23 Apr 2008

Birmingham 45



012497AUTOSIM

2 Workpackage Progress WP1 – CO-ORDINATION OF THE CONSORTIUM This workpackage existed in order to organise meetings and provide an overall coordinating framework for the consortium. It included the following tasks: Coordinating Activities Whilst the consortium had a principal coordinator, the management of each of the technology areas addressed was devolved as far as possible to each of the Technology Leaders (TLs). This work package provided technical coordination; and aimed to establish a link to bodies outside of the Consortium to promote its achievements and import knowledge from outside the EU. Organisation of TW meetings Co-ordination and organisation of Technology Workshop (TW) meetings (2 per year). Overseeing the workshop programme and ensuring the schedule of meetings were delivered. Organisation of CSC meetings Co-ordination, organisation, preparation for and chairing of CSC meetings and contributing to the review process. The activities in each task are largely self explanatory. All have been carried out without major difficulties, although the amount of administrative effort required in the early stages had been underestimated. WP1 Deliverables There are no project deliverables for this workpackage. WP1 Milestones There are no milestones set for this workpackage.



012497AUTOSIM

WORKPACKAGES 2, 3 AND 4: KEY TECHNOLOGIES 1, 2 AND 3 (Materials, Integration and Confidence) The objectives of these workpackages were to; coordinate the technology interests of all participants and ensure effective transfer of knowledge and experience across matters of topical interest. To assemble and collate information relating to best practices and potential breakthrough technologies for the application of engineering simulation within the European automotive industry. A key feature of these work packages was the series of technology workshops and seminars, which served as vehicles to assemble and collate best practice information for the industrial application of finite element and related technologies and to identify gaps in existing knowledge. WP 2, 3 and 4 Deliverables

Del. no.

Deliverable name Month

due Actual delivery

date

Estimated indicative person-months

Lead contractor

D2 Initial Report on Technology Priorities and Key Technologies

3 March 2006 3.00 CAEvolution

D6 Preliminary Report on Current Practices and Sate of the Art

10 July 2006 4.00 CAEvolution

D7 Preliminary Report on Development of Best Practices and Potential Breakthrough Technologies

16 January 2007 4.00 CAEvolution

D11

Preliminary Report on Barriers to Best Practice, Requirements for Breakthrough Technologies, Review of Technology Priorities and Key Technologies

22 September 2007 3.00 CAEvolution

D12 Preliminary Report on Standard Procedures

22 Replaced by

D24 3.00 CAEvolution

D14 Final Report on Current Practices and State of the Art

28 Subsumed into


D16

Final Report on Development of Best Practices, Potential Breakthrough Technologies, Barriers to Best Practice and Requirements for Breakthrough Technologies

34 Subsumed into


D17 Final Report on Standard Procedures 34 Replaced by


D18 Report on Technology Priorities and Key Technologies for the Future

35 Subsumed into


D24 White Paper on Project Findings 26 August 2008 5.50 CAEvolution

As the project developed, it became clear that the goal of developing standard procedures was not a worthwhile one. The major OEM’s have their own established and well developed procedures, which they impose as required on organisations within the supply chain. These procedures are detailed and encompass much of their IPR. There are neither opportunities, not a desire, for these to be amalgamated or replaced. Consequently, this aspect of the work was curtailed. The additional resource that this freed up was diverted into the development of a new deliverable – D24.



012497AUTOSIM

Furthermore, rather than produce three separate detailed reports covering the subject areas of D14, D16 and D18, it was determined that the goals of the project would be better served if the contents of these reports were limited to brief reports on the relevant workshops, and the further details were inserted into D24, which could then become the primary focus for the dissemination activitites. WP 2, 3 and 4 Milestones

Milestone no.

Milestone name Month

due Actual delivery

date Lead

contractor

M1 Definition of (and agreement on) the Key Technology areas

3 February 2006 CAEvolution

M5

Review of the Key Technology areas during the mid-term assessment and their definition for the remainder of the project

18 January 2007 CAEvolution

M6 Delivery of Mid-Term Assessment Report

19 February 2007 NAFEMS

M11 Delivery of Final Web site 36 August 2008 NAFEMS

M12 Project final documentation and closure

36 August 2008 NAFEMS

WORK PACKAGE 5: CONSULTATION The consortium that has been established is rich in its diversity: in terms of company type, products developed and geographical spread. The objective of this work package was to further strengthen the authority and relevance of the materials produced by the consortium through a process of consultation with all those involved with the use of engineering simulation within the European automotive industry. WP 5 Deliverables

Del. no.


due Actual delivery

date


Lead contractor

D9 Consultation Document

17 April 2008 3.00 NAFEMS

D15 Consultation Report

32 August 2008 4.00 NAFEMS

WP 5 Milestones

Milestone no.


due Actual delivery

date Lead

contractor

M4 Distribution of Consultation Document

17 April 2008 NAFEMS

M7 Completion of Consultation Report




012497AUTOSIM

The primary vehicle for the consultation process was a webinar held on ‘The Future of Simulation in the Automotive Industry’ on 3

rd April 2008. This was linked with the distribution

of a draft White Paper and followed up by an online questionnaire. 407 representatives of the automotive industry, primarily from Europe and North America, registered their interest, 271 attended the webinar and received the draft White Paper. In addition, further relevant personnel were urged to read the draft White Paper and complete the questionnaire. In total, 285 people completed the questionnaire. Its findings were used to compile the consultation report. Feedback from this process was considered and discussed during the final project workshop and taken into account when the final project reports were compiled. WORK PACKAGE 6: DISSEMINATION Widespread dissemination and exploitation of the information obtained and the outcomes of the project to provide the mechanism by which the long term objectives of the project will be met, thereby improving the effectiveness of the use of the latest engineering simulation technology in the European automotive industry. WP 6 Deliverables

Del. no.


due Actual delivery

date


Lead contractor

D1 Bulletin no. 1 2 August 2006 0.15 NAFEMS

D4 Preliminary Dissemination Report 4 February 2006 0.20 NAFEMS

D5 Project Presentation 5 March 2006 0.10 NAFEMS

D8 Bulletin no. 2 17 June 2007 0.15 NAFEMS

D13 Bulletin no. 3 25 April 2008 0.15 NAFEMS

D20 Web site 36 August 2008 1.00 NAFEMS

D21 Bulletin no. 4 36 October 2008 0.15 NAFEMS

D22 Report on Raising Public Participation and Awareness

36 August 2008 0.15 NAFEMS

D23 Dissemination Report 36 August 2008 0.20 NAFEMS

WP 6 Milestones

Milestone no.


due Actual delivery

date Lead

contractor

M2 Delivery of Initial Web site 3 October 2006 NAFEMS



M9 Delivery of Final Dissemination Plan


M10 Delivery of Project Summary Report


M11 Delivery of Final Web site 36 August 2008 NAFEMS



012497AUTOSIM

3 Consortium Management

3.1 Consortium Management Tasks and Achievements

A project web site (www.autosim.org) continues to be used as a central repository for information relating to the project. The Consortium Steering Committee met nine times during the course of the project and used these meetings as a series of focal points to help to guide the management of the project. Six Technical Workshops have been held by the project. The first was held in Barcelona on 17

th and 18

th January 2006 and attracted 41 attendees. The second was held in

Sonnenhausen near Munich on 4th and 5

th May 2006 and attracted 38 delegates. The third

was held in Lisbon on 23rd

and 24th November 2006 and attracted 44 delegates. The fourth

was held at the Renault Technocentre near Paris on 5th and 6

th July 2007 and attracted 38

delegates. The fifth was hosted by Labein tecnalia and held in Bilbao, Spain on 15th and 16

th

November 2007 with 36 delegates attending the meeting. The sixth and final workshop took place on 22

nd and 23

rd April and was held in Birmingham in the UK. 45 attended the workshop.

3.2 Contractors

A mid-term review meeting was held on 23

rd January 2007 in Graz. All representatives of the

CSC were present. The meeting was also attended by the EC Project Officer. There were various roles within the project that needed to be undertaken, namely: Co-ordinator, Assistant (or Technical) Co-ordinator, Technology Leader (x6), Rapporteur (x3) and ordinary project members. These roles were maintained as intended through the course of the project, notwithstanding the changes in consortium membership as detailed below A final project review meeting was held on 20

th June 2008 in Venice. All but two

representatives of the CSC were present. The two who were unable to be present in person attended the meeting by telephone using a conference call facility for a substantial proportion of the meeting.



012497AUTOSIM

AUTOSIM Project Members at time of contract signature:

No. Member

1 NAFEMS (Co-ord & Rap)

4 Opel (TL)

5 Quantech (TL)

6 Enginsoft (TL)

7 Labein (TL)

9 Renault (TL)

11 Comau

12 AVL

13 ABAQUS

14 IMAMOTER - C.N.R.

15 CADFEM

16 arsenal research

17 TRL (Rap)

18 EASI

19 Cork Institute

20 Robert Bosch

No. Member

1 SAFE

22 TARRC

23 MSC.Software

24 MECAS

25 MICADO

26 PANKL

27 DYNAMORE

28 LMS

29 Componenta Pistons

30 INPROSIM

31 TWT

32 CD-adapco

33 PSA Peugeot Citroen

34 CAEvolution (Asst. Co-ord & Rap)

36 University of Manchester

39 VIF (TL)

Changes agreed during the first Consortium Steering Committee Meeting - CSC1 – November 30

th 2005

Quantech was replaced by Herbertus, due to a career move by Dr. Gino Duffet, one of the Technical Leaders. Changes agreed during the second Consortium Steering Committee Meeting – CSC2 – January 18

th 2006

AVL and Opel withdrew from the project due to internal changes in personnel. SAFE was withdrawn by the committee due to a lack of response to essential project correspondence. Faurecia joined the project.

No. Member Original Budget

Revised Budget

4 Opel 22,590 0

12 AVL 9,360 0

21 SAFE 9.360 0

40 Faurecia 0 9,360

Changes agreed during the third Consortium Steering Committee Meeting – CSC3 – May 4

th 2006

Volvo joined the project.


Revised Budget

41 Volvo 0 9,360



012497AUTOSIM

Changes since the third Consortium Steering Committee Meeting P+Z joined the project as a Technology Leader.


Revised Budget

42 P+Z Engineering 0 22,590

Changes since the fourth Consortium Steering Committee Meeting Cork Institute of Technology withdrew from the project and SFE Gessellschaft für Strukturanalyse joined the project.


Revised Budget

19 Cork Institute 9.360 0

43 SFE 0 9,360

Consortium at end of first period Consortium at end of second period (31 August 2006) (31 August 2007) and at end of project

(31 August 2008)

No. Member No. Member

1 NAFEMS (Co-ord & Rap) 1 NAFEMS (Co-ord & Rap)

5 Herbertus (TL) 5 Herbertus (TL)

6 Enginsoft (TL) 6 Enginsoft (TL)

7 Labein (TL) 7 Labein (TL)

9 Renault (TL) 9 Renault (TL)

11 Comau 11 Comau

13 ABAQUS 13 ABAQUS

14 IMAMOTER - C.N.R. 14 IMAMOTER - C.N.R.

15 CADFEM 15 CADFEM

16 arsenal research 16 arsenal research

17 TRL (Rap) 17 TRL (Rap)

18 EASI 18 EASI

19 Cork Institute 20 Robert Bosch

20 Robert Bosch 22 TARRC

22 TARRC 23 MSC.Software

23 MSC.Software 24 MECAS

24 MECAS 25 MICADO

25 MICADO 26 PANKL

26 PANKL 27 DYNAMORE

27 DYNAMORE 28 LMS

28 LMS 29 Componenta Pistons

29 Componenta Pistons 30 INPROSIM

30 INPROSIM 31 TWT

31 TWT 32 CD-adapco

32 CD-adapco 33 PSA Peugeot Citroen

33 PSA Peugeot Citroen 34 CAEvolution (Asst. Co-ord & Rap)

34 CAEvolution (Asst. Co-ord & Rap) 36 University of Manchester

36 University of Manchester 39 VIF (TL)

39 VIF (TL) 40 Faurecia

40 Faurecia 41 Volvo

41 Volvo 42 P&Z Engineering (TL)

42 P&Z Engineering (TL) 43 SFE Gesellschaft

3.3 Project Timetable and Status

All aspects of the project as listed below were completed by the final month of the project. WP PHASES AND TASKS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1

0 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

1 Coordination

1.1 Coordination

1.2 Organisation of TW meetings

1.3 Organisation of CSC Meetings

2,3,4

Key Technologies

2.1 Preparation for TW meetings

2.2 Participation in TW meetings

2.3 Reporting of TW meetings

2.4 Technology Planning

5 Consultation

5.1 Preparation of consultation documents

5.2 Distribution of consultation documents

5.3 Proactive seeking of feedback on documents

5.4 Preparation of Consultation Report

5.5 Consideration of feedback

6 Dissemination

6.1 Populating web site

6.2 Publicising web site

6.3 Publicising TW meetings

6.4 Preliminary programme of dissemination activities

6.5 Dissemination Strategy Report

7 Management

7.1 Consortium Management

7.2 Management Handbook

7.3 Preparation of bulletin

7.4 Website development

7.5 Reporting

SIXTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME PRIORITY [6.2] [SUSTAINABLE SURFACE TRANSPORT] 012497AUTOSIM

18

3.4 Co-ordination Activities

Formal project meetings were held as follows: Consortium Steering Committee meetings: October 2005, January 2006, May 2006, November 2006, January 2007, July 2007, November 2007, April 2008 and June 2008 Technical Workshop meetings: January 2006, May 2006, November 2006, July 2007, November 2007 and April 2008. Minutes of Consortium Steering Committee meetings were written, distributed to CSC members and placed on the project web site. Technical reports were written following each of the project workshops. These reports were distributed to the relevant project partners and fully reviewed before being issued and placed on the project web site. Four issues of the project bulletin have been produced and widely distributed. All project partners have been equipped with a copy of an introductory project presentation, a project summary presentation and a report containing the project findings. These have been widely used and presented at a large number of high profile meetings across Europe, seminars and conferences around the world. WP 7 Deliverables

Del. no.


due Actual/Forecast

delivery date

Estimated indicative person-

months*)

Lead contractor

D3 Management Handbook 4 January 2006 0.15 NAFEMS

D10 Mid-Term Assessment Report 19 February 2007 0.20 NAFEMS

D19 Project Summary Report 36 August 2008 0.10 NAFEMS

WP 7 Milestones

Milestone no.


due Actual/Forecast

delivery date Lead

contractor

M3 Production of Management Handbook

4 January 2006 NAFEMS



M10 Delivery of Project Summary Report


M12 Project final documentation and closure



19

Appendix 1 – Plan for using and disseminating the knowledge Exploitable knowledge and its Use

Exploitable Knowledge

Sector Timetable for Commercial Use

Patents or Other IPR Protection

Owner & Partners Involved

Best Practice Guidelines Report on Integration of Simulation into Design

European Automotive

2008 None All

Best Practice Guidelines Report on Simulation of Materials Characterisation

European Automotive

2008 None All

Best Practice Guidelines Report on Making Simulation Fit for Purpose

European Automotive

2008 None All

Breakthrough Technologies for the Integration of Simulation into Design

European Automotive

2008 None All

Breakthrough Technologies for the Simulation of Materials Characterisation

European Automotive

2008 None All

Breakthrough Technologies for Making Simulation Fit for Purpose

European Automotive

2008 None All

The deliverables from the project will be widely exploited in a number of ways, including the following:

The Best Practice Guidelines will undoubtedly be followed by the project members, members of NAFEMS, and others within the simulation community to whom the information will be disseminated.

Information on Breakthrough Technologies will provide invaluable information on the prioritised requirements of the European automotive industry. This will be exploited by software developers (many of whom are represented within the consortium) and others wishing to undertake future RTD initiatives.

Dissemination of knowledge Public awareness of the project is being created in a number of ways. The project coordinator, NAFEMS, plays a substantial and significant role in terms of promoting awareness of the benefits of simulation and its effective use. It is using its established methods to help promote wide awareness of the AUTOSIM project within the European automotive industry, users of simulation throughout Europe and the rest of the world, as well as within industry as a whole, at all levels. Press Releases are regularly issued, and editors of numerous technical magazines, journals and other media outlets are briefed and encouraged to publicise the project. Furthermore, NAFEMS has an established role in providing education and training to practitioners in the field of engineering simulation. This role allows NAFEMS to encourage widespread usage and knowledge of the findings of AUTOSIM. A crucial element to this is in assisting with the implementation of simulation being used by non-specialists. Participation in the project by interested and relevant parties outwith the consortium members was actively encouraged. The Technical Workshops were open to all who are involved with the use of simulation in the automotive industry and were widely promoted. This strategy was successful. A large number of experts out with the project consortium attended the workshops and provided highly valued additional input. The project outcomes will be publicized through a combination of specialist trade journals, software vendor newsletters, the project web site and the NAFEMS web site. The information will be made available in both paper and electronic form. A pro-active approach to


20

dissemination will also be taken by the use of an extensive database of industry specific contacts established over the last 15 years by the co-ordinator. The co-ordinator will be responsible for the ongoing dissemination of results, during and beyond the life of the Coordination Action. In addition to the organisations participating in the consortium, the coordinator will disseminate the reports produced to its membership organisations which number over 900, and use its database of several thousand organisations active in the simulation field to ensure wide promotion of the activities of the project. Actual Dates

Type Type of Audience

Countries Addressed

Size of Audience

Partner Responsible

Sept 2005 Website General Engineering Public

Global 19,804 NAFEMS

Oct 2005 Magazine Editorial

General Engineering Public


Oct 2005 TCN Conference Italy

Industry & Research

Europe

Imamoter

Website General Engineering Public

Global EnginSoft

Network Bulletin

Industry & Research

Europe 90 NAFEMS

Dec 2005

Direct Emailing Promoting TW1

Industry & Research

Europe 12,000 NAFEMS

Jan 2006 Magazine General Engineering Public


Feb 2006 Press Release


Europe X,000’s NAFEMS

Mar 2006 Magazine Editorial

Industry & Research

Germany 7,000 NAFEMS

Apr 2006 Magazine Editorial



Apr 2006


Industry & Research Europe 12,000 NAFEMS

June 2006 Website General Engineering Public


June 2006 NAFEMS UK Conference

Industry UK 90 NAFEMS

July 2006 EnginSoft Newsletter

Industry Italy EnginSoft

July 2006 Magazine Editorial



Sept 2006 MICADO Conference

Industry France 250 Renault

Sept 2006 Abaqus User Conference

Industry Germany 200 CAEvolution


21

Actual Dates


Countries Addressed

Size of Audience

Partner Responsible

Sept 2006 Project Report

NAFEMS Members

Global 750 NAFEMS




Oct 2006


Industry & Research

Europe 4,000+ NAFEMS

Jan 2007 Magazine Editorial



Feb 2007 Magazine Editorial


Italy

NAFEMS

May 2007 World Congress


Global 260 NAFEMS

June 2007 Website General Engineering Public


June 2007


Industry & Research





Oct 2007


Industry & Research





Nov 2007


Industry & Research Europe 4,000+ NAFEMS

Dec 2007 Magazine Editorial


Germany 3,000+ NAFEMS

Jan 2008 Magazine Editorial



Mar 2008


Industry & Research


Network Bulletin

Industry & Research

Europe 90 NAFEMS

April 2008 Magazine Editorial




22

Actual Dates


Countries Addressed

Size of Audience

Partner Responsible

April 2008


Industry & Research


April 2008 Webinar General Engineering Public

Global 393 NAFEMS

April 2008 Magazine Editorial



April 2008 Network Bulletin 3


Europe 200+ NAFEMS

May 2008

CORDIS European Commission's official information service for Research & Development


Europe NAFEMS

May 2008

CORDIS - Technology Opportunities Today


Europe NAFEMS

July 2008 ASMO-UK UK NAFEMS







August 2008 Printed Report

Industry & Research

Global 1,000 NAFEMS

August 2008 Electronic Report

Industry & Resarch

Global 2,000+ NAFEMS

Oct 2008 Network Bulletin

Industry & Research

Europe 200 NAFEMS

development of best practices & identification of breakthrough … · 2015-07-03 · 1 project...

Documents