Durability Simulation and the Value of Product Development Resources

What value does your company gain by deploying product development resources one way vs. another when it comes to durability?

R&D organizations are built around what it takes to get the product into production.  The costs of the organization include wages for the engineers and technicians, the costs of the capital equipment used in development and testing, and the overhead from administrative functions.  These are all fixed costs, and in the rubber industry it is typical to see R&D budgets that amount to somewhere between 1% and 5% of sales.

The R&D program lifecycle is iterative.  It goes something like this: design, build, test, qualify for production, launch product.  A quick way to understand product development costs is to look at how long it takes for one design-build-test-launch iteration.  If it takes your tech center one year per iteration, then the cost of one pass through the cycle is something like (company annual sales) x (R&D rate per annual sales)/(number of parallel development programs executing at a given time in your tech center).  For a $2B company with a 2.5% research budget and 10 development programs in the works, this works out to $5M/iteration.

How much of this cost is burned on durability issues?  Potentially all of it, at least within any one given iteration.  At worst, a non-qualifying test result leads to a “back to the drawing board” restart of the iteration.  The durability tests required for qualification can only be made after the prototype is in hand, so a restart means the whole team ends up revisiting and reproducing to correct a failed iteration.  Over the long run, if your iteration failure rate is 1 in 5 iterations (20%), that means you are burning $5M x 20% = $500k per product.

How much of this cost can realistically be avoided?  The big opportunity lies in the fact that the old “build and break” paradigm does not immediately hold accountable design decisions that lead to poor durability, and it does not have enough band-width to allow for much optimization.  A “build and break” only plan is a plan for business failure.  Poor decisions are only tested and caught after big investments in the iteration have all become sunk costs.  The advent of simulation has fueled a new “right the first time” movement that empowers the engineer to very rapidly investigate and understand how alternative materials, alternative geometries, or alternative duty cycles impact durability.  The number of alternatives that can be evaluated and optimized by an analyst before committing other resources is many times greater.  “Right the first time” via simulation is a model that is increasingly favored by OEMs and suppliers because it works.  Expect to halve your iteration failure rate.


Tire Society 2017 – Best Question

Every year, the top minds from academia, government and industry gather in Akron to share their work at the Tire Society annual meeting, and to enjoy a few moments of professional camaraderie.  Then we all return to fight for another year in the trenches of the technology wars of our employers.

This year, the meeting offered the latest on perennial themes: modal analysis, traction, materials science, noise, simulation, wear, experimental techniques for material characterization and for model validation.  Too much to summarize with any depth in a blog post.  If you are interested, you should definitely resolve to go next year.  Endurica presented two papers this year.

I presented a demonstration of how the Endurica CL fatigue solver can account for the effects of self-heating on durability in a rolling tire.  Endurica CL computes dissipation using a simple microsphere model that is compatible, in terms of discretization of the shared microsphere search/integration domain, with the critical plane search used for fatigue analysis.  In addition to defining dissipative properties of the rubber, the user defines the temperature sensitivity of the fatigue crack growth rate law when setting up the tire analysis.  In the case considered, a 57 degC temperature rise was estimated, which decreased the fatigue life of the belt edge by a factor of nearly two, relative to the life at 23 degC.  The failure mode was predicted at the belt edges.  For 100% rated load, straight ahead rolling, the tire was computed to have a life of 131000 km.

The best audience question was theoretical in nature: are the dissipation rates and fatigue lives computed by Endurica objective under a coordinate system change?  And how do we know?  The short answer is that the microsphere / critical plane algorithm, properly implemented, guarantees objectivity.  It is a simple matter to test: we can compute the dissipation and fatigue life for the same strain history reported in two different coordinate systems.  The dissipation rate and the fatigue life should not depend on which coordinate system is used to give the strain history.

For the record, I give here the full Endurica input (PCO.hfi) and output (PCO.hfo) files for our objectivity benchmark.  In this benchmark, histories 11 and 12 give the same simple tension loading history in two different coordinate systems.  Likewise, 21 and 22 give a planar tension history in two coordinate systems.  Finally, 31 and 32 give a biaxial tension history in two coordinate systems.  Note that all of the strain histories are defined in the **HISTORY section of the .hfi file.  In all cases, the strains are given as 6 components of the nominal strain tensor, in the order 11, 22, 33, 12, 23, 31.  The shear strains are given as engineering shear components, not tensor (2*tensor shear = engineering shear).

The objectivity test is successful in all cases because, as shown in the output file PCO.hfo, both the fatigue life, and the hysteresis, show the same values under a coordinate system change.  Quod Erat Demonstrondum.



Trial License RequestTrial License RequestTrial License RequestTrial License RequestTrial License Request