Wärtsilä Digital Design Platform
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64621Schlagwörter:
SPDM, product development lifecycle, reliability analysis, PLM, simulation workflows, data managementAbstract
We present a methodology for systematically using an SPDM platform as the cornerstone of product development. The target is to base product development on clearly defined targets and requirements in different phases of the product development lifecycle. This is achieved by means of a data-centered approach where all data is retained in a digital form in the platform. Instead of reporting, users are provided with different views to the same data. We will demonstrate how a static document-based validation system can be replaced by a common validation data platform. In addition, we aim to base the validation requirements on a reliability analysis workflow.
In this case, the platform is used not only to handle the simulation data but to encompass the whole product validation scope. To this end, we show how to couple requirements to the simulations and handle all the design decision data together with the simulations and use these to drive the design. In addition, we present ways to replace simulation reports with dynamic dashboards. To complete the loop, we touch the topic of PLM integration as a tool for assuring completeness of validation data in the product lifecycle.
The motivation for the activity is a dramatic reduction in product development time based on a possibly somewhat longer concept phase but less iterations during the detail design phase. We will also present decision making based on data stored in the platform as well as demonstrate the data-centered approach to validation data. In addition, other benefits such as the re-use of data and simulation workflows along with the automatically handled data management are demonstrated. To conclude, some end user opinions and experiences in adopting a new system will be presented.
Future developments will include moving also the physical testing data and coupling that with the corresponding simulations and validation requirements.
Literaturhinweise
kenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):224-228, 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.
64942.
[2] Carsten Eller and Joachim Hildebrand. Introduction of SDM at Eberspacher exhaust
technology. In NAFEMS World Congress 2017. Nafems.
[3] Tero Frondelius, Pasi Halla-aho, and Antti Mantyla. Crankshaft development with
virtual engine modelling. In CIMAC Congress Helsinki, 2016.
[4] Michael Grieves. A380 snafu, 2006. URL http://innovate.fit.edu/plm/
documents/doc_mgr/912/A380%20Snafu%202006.pdf.
[5] Johannes Heilala, Teemu Kuivaniemi, Juho Konno, and Tero Frondelius. Concept
calculation tool for dynamics of generator set common baseframe. Rakenteiden Me-
kaniikka, 50(3):313-316, 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64925.
[6] Juho Konno, Tero Frondelius, Thomas Resch, and Maria Jose Santos-Descalzo. Simulation
based grid compliance. In CIMAC Congress Helsinki, 2016.
[7] Asko Kumpula, Joona Vaara, Anton Leppanen, and Tero Frondelius. Nodular cast
iron ONERA fatigue model tting. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka, 50(3):179-181, 2017.
URL https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64740.
[8] Anton Leppanen, Asko Kumpula, Joona Vaara, Massimo Cattarinussi, Juho Konno,
and Tero Frondelius. Thermomechanical fatigue analysis of cylinder head. Rakentei-
den Mekaniikka, 50(3):182-185, 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64743.
[9] Bob Tickel. The future of modelling and simulation at Cummins. In NAFEMS World
Congress 2017. Nafems.
[10] Miikka Vantanen, Joona Vaara, Jukka Aho, Jukka Kemppainen, and Tero Frondelius.
Bayesian sequential experimental design for fatigue tests. Rakenteiden Mekaniikka,
50(3):201-205, 2017. URL https://doi.org/10.23998/rm.64924.
Downloads
Veröffentlicht
Ausgabe
Rubrik
Lizenz
Copyright (c) 2017 Juho Könnö, Hannu Tienhaara, Tero Frondelius

Dieses Werk steht unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung - Weitergabe unter gleichen Bedingungen 4.0 International.