Compiler: from full ADAMS multi-body model to IPG CarMaker Real Time - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
compiler from full adams multi body model to ipg
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Compiler: from full ADAMS multi-body model to IPG CarMaker Real Time - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 28, 2022 587 likes •1.09k views

Soluzioni Ingegneria (finance code IT02946830136) P.zza Manzoni 11, I-23900 Lecco ITALY Title: ADAMS2CM converter & TestManager Automatic Compiler: from full ADAMS multi-body model to IPG CarMaker Real Time based model. Revision.

slide-1
SLIDE 1

23/09/2014 1

Title:

«ADAMS2CM converter» & «TestManager Automatic Compiler»: from full ADAMS multi-body model to IPG CarMaker Real Time based model.

  • Revision. 1

Soluzioni Ingegneria (finance code IT02946830136) P.zza Manzoni 11, I-23900 Lecco ITALY

slide-2
SLIDE 2

23/09/2014 2

Index

INDEX

  • The need of ADAMS2CM converter
  • Structure of ADAMS2CM converter
  • Results of ADAMS vs CM/TM models comparison
  • Conclusions, developments and potentials
slide-3
SLIDE 3

23/09/2014 3

The need of ADAMS2CM converter

MSC ADAMS is the most diffused Multi Body (MB) tool in the world. It is commonly used for:

MULTI-BODY suspensions design. Generic bushing effects simulation. Reaction forces

  • n any

structure point. Virtual test bench for suspensions. Simulation of subsystems dynamic response. Design of geometry and dimensions of components. FEM analysis

  • f

chassis.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

23/09/2014 4

The need of ADAMS2CM converter

IPG Automotive CarMaker is a real-time based vehicle model suitable for:

Vehicle Dynamics modeling. Real time HIL applications. ADAS systems. Traffic interations. Complex scenarios definition. Closed loop maneuvers (IPG Driver).

slide-5
SLIDE 5

23/09/2014 5

The need of ADAMS2CM converter

A car manufacturer needs to deal with both the two complementary worlds... For further stages:

  • Whole vehicle and

subsystems analysis.

  • Hardware

verification (HIL). For early process stages:

  • Whole vehicle

dynamics analysis.

  • Single subsystems

(no ECUs, no controllers, …)

slide-6
SLIDE 6

23/09/2014 6

The need of ADAMS2CM converter

A way to pass from one world to the other is needed… «ADAMS2CM converter»:

  • Fast conversion.
  • Reliable model conversion.
  • Semi-automated procedure.

…that means time and money saving!

«ADAMS2CM Converter»

slide-7
SLIDE 7

23/09/2014 7

Index

INDEX

  • The need of ADAMS2CM converter
  • Structure of ADAMS2CM converter
  • Results of ADAMS vs CM/TM models comparison
  • Conclusions, developments and potentials
slide-8
SLIDE 8

23/09/2014 8

The following subsystems of the vehicle can be converted:

Structure of ADAMS2CM converter

Suspension kinematics and compliance. Sprung mass. Steering Powertrain. Brakes. Aerodynamics. Tires.

slide-9
SLIDE 9

23/09/2014 9

The following subsystems of the vehicle can be converted:

Structure of ADAMS2CM converter

Suspension kinematics and compliance. Sprung mass. Steering Powertrain. Brakes. Aerodynamics. Tires.

Most of the ADAMS subsystem can be directly converted…

slide-10
SLIDE 10

23/09/2014 10

What does it mean «direct» conversion? Here an example about ICE Engine Maps

Structure of ADAMS2CM converter

Suspension kinematics and compliance. Sprung mass. Steering Brakes. Aerodynamics. Tires.

ADAMS data: Engine maps CM data: Engine maps

Powertrain.

Direct import of data ADAMS .pwr file CM engine GUI

slide-11
SLIDE 11

23/09/2014 11

Structure of ADAMS2CM converter

Suspension kinematics and compliance. Sprung mass. Steering Powertrain. Brakes. Aerodynamics. Tires.

Suspensions have to be translated into look-up-tables: need of a non-direct conversion… The following subsystems of the vehicle can be converted:

slide-12
SLIDE 12

23/09/2014 12

Structure of ADAMS2CM converter

Sprung mass. Steering Powertrain. Brakes. Aerodynamics. Tires.

Suspensions steer assembly in ADAMS. CM suspension model

Suspension kinematics and compliance.

What does it mean «non-direct» conversion? Here an example about Suspension Kinematics

  • Suspensions and

steer analysis in ADAMS.

  • Data extraction

and conversion,

  • creation of CM

readable model.

slide-13
SLIDE 13

23/09/2014 13

Batch run of simulations. Test automation with test manager.

Structure of ADAMS2CM converter

The converted model is finally compared with the original one according to customized criteria: Each CarManufacturer defines its own set of standard maneuvers:

  • Transient and steady state tests.
  • Longitudinal and lateral tests.

Each CarManufacturer defines also its own matching evaluation criteria.

Sample screenshot Sample screenshot

slide-14
SLIDE 14

23/09/2014 14

In order to increase automation level a new tool has been created: «Test Manager Automatic Compiler»

  • Automatic generation of complex .ts files.
  • Increase test manager flexibility.
  • Create undreds of variations in few seconds.

Structure of ADAMS2CM converter

Test automation with test manager.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

23/09/2014 15

In order to increase automation level a new tool has been created: «Test Manager Automatic Compiler»

  • Automatic generation of complex .ts files.
  • Increase test manager flexibility.
  • Create undreds of variations in few seconds.

Sample compiling procedure:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

… …

Tests selection from customized list Par 1 Par 2 … Par X Automatic Test Manager creation Parameters adaption

slide-16
SLIDE 16

23/09/2014 16

Index

INDEX

  • The need of ADAMS2CM converter
  • Structure of ADAMS2CM converter
  • Results of ADAMS vs CM/TM models comparison
  • Conclusions, developments and potentials
slide-17
SLIDE 17

23/09/2014 17

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

The conversion result is finally verified comparing orginal ADAMS model and CM model. Each Car Manufacturer defines:

  • A list of maneuvers to be simulated (steady state,

transient…);.

  • An appropriated set of parameters for each maneuver

(speed, steer angle, …).

  • The indices to be calculated

to evaluate the matching of the results;

  • A final synthetic index to

evaluate the accuracy of conversion process.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

23/09/2014 18

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

The conversion result is finally verified comparing orginal ADAMS model and CM model. Each Car Manufacturer defines:

  • A list of maneuvers to be simulated (steady state,

transient…);.

  • An appropriated set of parameters for each maneuver

(speed, steer angle, …). Par 1 Par 2 … Par X

slide-19
SLIDE 19

23/09/2014 19

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

The conversion procedure has been verified together with a big Car Manufacturer. Below the list of chosen maneuvers:

slide-20
SLIDE 20

23/09/2014 20

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

APPLICATION: CarMaker VEHICLE MODEL: Sample car (2 axles) TEST: Open Loop Slow Steering Ramp INPUTS:

  • Constant reference speed: 60 km/h
  • Fixed gear: 4°
  • Steer angle reference signal: 0°-180° ramp

Reference Speed Reference Steer

Speed [km/h] Time [s] Time [s] Steer Angle [deg]

slide-21
SLIDE 21

23/09/2014 21

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

NOTE: for confidentiality no details about calculated indices are shown.

slide-22
SLIDE 22

23/09/2014 22

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23/09/2014 23

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front vertical forces.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-24
SLIDE 24

23/09/2014 24

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front vertical forces. Front ground lateral forces

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-25
SLIDE 25

23/09/2014 25

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front vertical forces. Front ground lateral forces Front tyre side slip Angle.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-26
SLIDE 26

23/09/2014 26

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front vertical forces. Front ground lateral forces Front tyre side slip Angle. Front suspensions travel.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-27
SLIDE 27

23/09/2014 27

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front vertical forces. Front ground lateral forces Front tyre side slip Angle. Front suspensions travel.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-28
SLIDE 28

23/09/2014 28

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

APPLICATION: CarMaker VEHICLE MODEL: Sample car (2 axles) TEST: Sine with dwell INPUTS:

  • Constant reference speed: 60 km/h
  • Throttle release
  • Sine with dwell steer reference

Reference Throttle Reference Steer

Throttle [-] Time [s] Time [s] Steer Angle [deg]

slide-29
SLIDE 29

23/09/2014 29

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

NOTE: for confidentiality no details about calculated indices are shown.

slide-30
SLIDE 30

23/09/2014 30

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-31
SLIDE 31

23/09/2014 31

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front vertical forces.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-32
SLIDE 32

23/09/2014 32

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front vertical forces. Front ground lateral forces Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-33
SLIDE 33

23/09/2014 33

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front ground lateral forces Front tyre side slip Angle. Front vertical forces. Roll Angle. Side slip Angle.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-34
SLIDE 34

23/09/2014 34

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front tyre side slip Angle. Front suspensions travel. Front vertical forces. Roll Angle. Side slip Angle. Front ground lateral forces

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-35
SLIDE 35

23/09/2014 35

Results from CM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Front suspensions travel. Front vertical forces. Roll Angle. Side slip Angle. Front tyre side slip Angle. Front ground lateral forces

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-36
SLIDE 36

23/09/2014 36

Finally the Car Manufacturer defined its own accuacy indicex:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

«ADAMS2CM converter»

(final overall index for all the tests)

  • Avg. Accuracy

Dev.Std.

98.5% 1.5%

slide-37
SLIDE 37

23/09/2014 37

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

APPLICATION: TruckMaker VEHICLE MODEL: Sample truck (4 axles) TEST: Sine with dwell INPUTS:

  • Constant reference speed: 60 km/h
  • Throttle release
  • Sine with dwell steer reference

Reference Throttle Reference Steer

Throttle [-] Time [s] Time [s] Steer Angle [deg]

slide-38
SLIDE 38

23/09/2014 38

Results from TM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Lateral acceleration. NOTE: for confidentiality no details about calculated indices are shown.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-39
SLIDE 39

23/09/2014 39

Results from TM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Roll Angle. Lateral acceleration.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-40
SLIDE 40

23/09/2014 40

Results from TM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Roll Angle. Lateral acceleration. 1° axle vertical forces.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-41
SLIDE 41

23/09/2014 41

Results from TM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Roll Angle. Lateral acceleration. 1° axle vertical forces. 1° axle ground lateral forces

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-42
SLIDE 42

23/09/2014 42

Results from TM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Roll Angle. Lateral acceleration. 1° axle vertical forces. 1° axle ground lateral forces 1° axle tyre side slip Angle.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-43
SLIDE 43

23/09/2014 43

Results from TM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Roll Angle. Lateral acceleration. 1° axle vertical forces. 1° axle ground lateral forces 1° axle tyre side slip Angle. Front suspensions travel.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-44
SLIDE 44

23/09/2014 44

Results from TM have been compared with those from ADAMS:

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

Roll Angle. Lateral acceleration. 1° axle vertical forces. 1° axle ground lateral forces 1° axle tyre side slip Angle. Front suspensions travel.

(*) numerical values hidden for confidentiallity

slide-45
SLIDE 45

23/09/2014 45

Results of ADAMS vs CM models comparison

«ADAMS2CM converter»

(final overall index for all the tests)

  • Avg. Accuracy

Dev.Std.

98.0% 2.0%

Finally the Car Manufacturer defined its own accuacy indicex:

slide-46
SLIDE 46

23/09/2014 46

Index

INDEX

  • The need of ADAMS2CM converter
  • Structure of ADAMS2CM converter
  • Results of ADAMS vs CM/TM models comparison
  • Conclusions, developments and potentials
slide-47
SLIDE 47

23/09/2014 47

Conclusions, developments and potentials

CONCLUSIONS

  • mostly all “nowadays” OEM use ADAMS fro vehicle early-stage design;
  • OEM will continue to exploit ADAMS functionality;
  • common vision for incoming future is the growing need of RT simulation as well;
  • a synergy between MB and RT simulation is a “must”;

 objective need of a (semi)automatic, reliable ADAMS2CM tool, updated year- by-year as front end of both the simulation to save time and money.

  • The Beta-version of the converter tool has been presented. In detail:
  • each single ADAMS model’s Subsystem arrangement;
  • extraction of required quantities;
  • data translation from ADAMS to CM language;
  • procedure of conversion results comparison over significant maneuvers.
  • The toll reliability has been quantified; conversion precision rises up to more than 98%
  • f matching quality;
  • Toll has been already applied both to passenger vehicle (2 axles) and to truck (4 axels).
slide-48
SLIDE 48

23/09/2014 48

Conclusions, developments and potentials

WIP

  • «ADAMS2CM

converter»

  • n

a pre- developments stage;

  • «Test Manager Automatic Self Compiler»:

available in Beta-version, both as stand- alone and integrated in ADAMS2CM tool;

  • troubleshooting new application samples,

CM integration is now running to converge to release 1.0;

slide-49
SLIDE 49

23/09/2014 49

Conclusions, developments and potentials

POTENTIALS

  • Improvements of IPG software

potential: ADAMS is now communicating with CM!

  • IPG products’ potential market;

relevant time saving for the conversion procedure.

  • Quality of conversion will be

delegated.

  • Hand

conversion no longer required.

  • No

risk to hand-conversion errors.

  • Rapid conversion from ADAMS to

CarMaker through a new concept

  • f model database: both ADAMS

and CM models will live together and used when necessary!

slide-50
SLIDE 50

23/09/2014 50

“…our mission is to observe market needs, to design research innovation and transfer achieved methodologies to partner companies to face to every-day challenges… ”

Research partnership in technology innovation(SINCE 2004)

Managing Directors: Dr.-Ing. Marco E. Pezzola • Dr. Ing. Elisabetta Leo VAT code: 02946830136 I-23900 Lecco (ITALY), p.zza Manzoni 11 Phone/Fax: +39.0341.180968 mailto: info@si-ita.it

Soluzioni Ingegneria GROUP

Thanks fro your kindly attention! We wait for you at our demo-stand for further information!