MPD 575 Design for Geometric Compatibility

1. MPD 575Design for Geometric Compatibility Jonathan Weaver Cohort 8 Jack Wildman

2. DFGC Development History • This material was prepared by Cohort 8 students in the Fall of 2007: • Jack Wildman

3. Design for Geometric Compatibility • Needs for Geometric Compatibility • Concerns with Geometric Compatibility • Customer Driven Product Direction • Digital Vehicle Definition • Product Structure • Manufacturing Structure • Plant Structure • Geometric Requirements • Reporting Results

4. Need for Geometric Compatibility • Earlier verification to new customer requirements • High Vehicle Configuration Combination complexities • Digital Validation is Cheaper than Physical Validation • High Cost of Tooling Rework • Ensures Proper Fit of Parts Prior to Committing Financial Resources • Cad is the only representation of what will be manufactured prior to prototypes

5. Need for Geometric Compatibility (Cont.) • Virtual Validation can be Applied in all Aspects of System Engineering • Manufacturing Process • CAE analysis • Tooling • Stamping • Serviceability • Craftsmanship • Packaging • Customer expectations can be Visualized Early in the System Engineering Process • Better Design from Early No Build Conditions • More Time to Correct No Build Conditions

6. Concerns with Geometric Compatibility • Product Direction Letter (PDL) is not 100% defined early in Program • Early Bill of Materials (BOM) is not stable • Requires discipline to manage CAD BOM early in process • Geometric verification is not a high priority early on • Design Contexts are work in progress early in the vehicle development cycle • This is normal product development evolution

7. Theme Development Package Development Service Digital Pre Assembly (DPA) Plant and Facilities Product Engineering Digital Product & Process Integration CATIA V5 CATIA V5 • Digitally Aligned • Bill of Material • Bill of Process • CAx Product Structure Reports Product / Process Simulation Functional Simulation Supplier Integration Virtual Vehicle Realization Digital Pre Assembly (DPA)Ford GPDS Process (2007) GPDS = Global Product Development System

8. Customer Driven Product Direction • Benefits of Quality Customer Direction • Shared vision by all involved activities • Proper reflection in budgets and resource plans to execute the direction • Translation errors minimized • Order guides and broadcast (build) sheets are accurate • Financial and supporting calculations have integrity • Parts lists and bills of material (BOM) can be accurate • These benefits out way the concerns of managing CAD as the actual BOM early in a program

9. Poor PDL Costs

10. Poor PDL Ramifications • Late announcement of direction • If changes in direction are not made and announced in time to execute the changes, the final product may be very late to market, or not have the development or prove out time desired, risking quality. • Improper specification of Marketing features/options • One category of Program Direction Letter is the Features and Options Summary, which specifies the arrangement of Standard and Optional features and series to be offered for a given product line. If that specification does not reflect the summary needs of both the Marketing communities and the Engineering groups that must design and develop a product. • Unclear Program direction • When direction is announced via a PDL, the direction must be sufficiently specific for the affected activities to take the expected actions. The level of detail of direction expands as a program progresses down the Product Development process. Later in a program, when actual parts are to be designed and prepared for production, a much more detailed work breakdown structure is required.

11. Digital Vehicle Definition • Configured CAD BOM Alignment • Variants / Effectivity = Usage • 100 % 3D Geometry Defined in Context • Product • Manufacturing • Plant • Full Motion (Kinematics / Dynamic) • Change Management of BOM • Market Studies • Collaboration Contexts • Ford PDM • TeamCenter Engineering (TCe)

12. Vehicle Configuration Boundaries • Product Development Process • Digital Verification CAD development crosses all phases Mission Statement Product Planning Concept Development System Design Detail Design Digital Validation Testing/ Refinement Production Ramp up Product Launch Ulrich and Eppinger, 1995

13. Configured CAD BOM • Cad Product structure is aligned to the Engineering BOM • Early in the Product Development Process prior to ordering parts these are the same BOM • The BOM consists of Usages • A usage is all of the attributes that describes how a part is going to be used in product • We will concentrate on Variants (Why) and Effectivity (When) a part is valid in a BOM • The combination of effectivity and variants is called configuration

14. Configured CAD BOM Ford (TCe) Red Items System Breakdown Pink Items Part Instances Options stored at Program Level

15. Configured CAD BOM Ford (TCe) Quantity required for Program Effectivity on Part Instances Green “V” = Variant Condition

16. Configured CAD BOM (Variants) • The set of variants that create a product configuration that is manufactured (buildable combination) is called a variant filter • A variant filter is what is used to filter the product structure to different buildable combinations • Variants/options are: • Marketing • Engineering • Procurement

17. Configured CAD BOM (Variants) Ford (TCe) Selected Option Values for Product Variant Filter

18. Configured CAD BOM (Effectivity) • Each revision of a part will use effectivity to track what revision is valid for a specific milestone (point in time) • A effectivity filter is what is used to filter the product structure to see the coordinated revisions of the BOM • When both variant and effectivity filters are applied simultaneously will be a set of parts that are going to be assembled at the plant

19. Configured CAD BOM (Effectivity) • Effectivity is not simple as using the current date to manage the milestones • Actual calendar dates are mapped to a sequential hierarchical effectivity number • The mapping is done to solve the case where in automotive the prototype phase of next model year may overlap with current production model year as to when part are due • We will make a linear timeline stacking the model years end to end

20. Each Number Increment within the Hierarchy gives a New Block of Numbers to Manage the BOM 1234567 Production/Prototype Phase Coordination Phase Model Year Tryout Build Phase 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 Model years

21. Model Year Management for Perpetual Timeline ONE ACTUAL TIMELINE PROTO 2003 PROD REALITY TIMELINES OVERLAP PROTO 2003.5 PROD PROTO 2004 PROD TIMELINES WILL BE STACKED END TO END PROTO 2003 PROD PROTO 2003.5 PROD PROTO 2004 PROD 3599 999 Filter 03.5 3020 000 03 4010 000 P4.0 3000 000 PS 3010 000 P3 3021 100 DB 1 3510 000 P3.5 3520 000 03.5 3521 010 WBDB 2 3521 100 DB 2 4020 000 04 4021 100 DB 3 4999 999 Filter O4 9999 999 EP 3521 110 WADB 2 MILESTONES CAN BE ADDED WHERE COORDINATION IS REQUIRED

22. Configured CAD BOM (Effectivity)Ford (TCe) Effectivity Rule Names (U502 Job 1 Buck) Effectivity Rule Hierarchy

23. 100 % 3D Geometry Defined in Context • Product Structure needs to be partitioned into Systems and Sub-Systems • Ford Uses Corporate Product System Classification (CPSC) codes • All Geometry Requires a Bounding Box/Space Map to Define the Spatial Location of the Part in Context • PDM and CAD Tools will use these Spatial Relationships for Design in Context Queries

24. Configured CAD BOM Ford (TCe) Configuration Rule Applied Embedded Viewer (Design in Context) (Clash Management)

25. Full Motion (Kinematics / Dynamic) • Motion of any parts simulated in the context of the vehicle program • Motion is can be stopped in worse case conditions to design proper clearances • Motion is used by manufacturing to see if parts can loaded • Motion of tools and access for part attachment are also required for proper design in context

26. Vehicle Geometric Requirements • Requirements come from all activities • Design • Engineering • Manufacturing • Stamping • Requirements are Part to Part, System to System or Part to System • All requirements are derived over time

27. Vehicle Geometric Requirements(Ford Example) Check Value Type of Check System System

28. Vehicle Geometric Requirements(Ford Example) • Who is responsible for the interface

29. Requirements Cascade (Part) Body Engineering: Hood Sub-system DFMEA: Hood Assy Item/Function: Jury evaluation, Fail. Mode: Squeak & Rattle, Causal Mech: Insufficient torsional stiffness What Functional requirement: Hood Torsional Stiffness (HD-0018) Ford Requirements collected in SDS, stored in SetK, assessed using DVM, compliance tracked in eFDVS, DVP&R DVM: Torsional Stiffness – CAE (DVM-0027-18) Torsional Stiffness – Bench (DVM-0024-HD) Torsional Stiffness – Vehicle (DVM-0025-HD) How’s Design Rules: HD-010205A-0001 All steel inner panel main beams (periphery) must be 25mm minimum depth for the full length of the beams DR’s collected in Excel , stored in eRoom, assessed in CAD/manually, compliance tracked in Excel Parameter: Hood Beam Depth = 25mm min Parameters collected in Excel, stored in eRoom/TMT, assessed in CAD, compliance tracked in CAD/TMT Template-based parameter set Template Part

30. Requirements Cascade (Vehicle) Body Engineering: Hood Sub-system DFMEA: Hood Assy Item/Function: Jury evaluation, Fail. Mode: Squeak & Rattle, Causal Mech: Hood components rubbing (ref. HD-0004) What Functional requirement: Hood System Cycle Durability (HD-0018) DVM: Hood System Key Life Durability (DVM-0033-HD) How Design Rules: HD-010205A-0033 Hood inner panel will maintain 20mm clearance to engine bay components Parameter: Hood Inner Clearance = 20 mm min Geometric Checks: Hood outer to x > 20mm Hood outer to y > 20 mm Ford Geometric checks collected in Excel, stored in VVT, assessed in VIS/CAD compliance tracked in VVT Compliant

31. Requirements Stored in TCe Requirements Stored in program context at System level in Excel

32. Change Management • The Product Lifecycle Manager (PLM) • Route Geometric Changes to Appropriate set of Approvers for Digital Verification • Track all changes to the Product Structure • Positional • Variant • Effectivity • Quantity • Part Number Supersedures • Reports on health of program generated from changes tracked against usages

33. Change ManagementFord (TCe Workflow) Change Manages (BOM Changes) (Effectivity) (Sign Offs)

34. Manufacturing Structure • Tooling moved to product location for combined manufacturing and product context • This context can be launched to appropriate CAD system real time updates to fulfill geometric/functional requirements

35. Manufacturing StructureFord (TCe) Manufacturing Process in Design Position

36. Plant Structure • Tooling and product moved to plant for production simulation • Ergonomics studies can also be performed • Can drive or fly through plant to see if any major space shortages are apparent

37. Plant StructureFord (TCe) Plant Layout Stations moved to Plant Context

38. Reports • The PLM system (TCe) will be used to store the product structure and design context with geometric change management authority verification sign-off • The geometric non-compliance issues will be documented on each usage in the product structure

39. Reports (cont.) • The report will combine all non compliant issues that cross systems that can not be solves by a single system team • The report can be parsed by system issues or individual usage issues • The report will be scrutinized more often as major milestones are being approached • Ford uses Global Product Development Process (GPDS) to define the Milestones.

40. Correct Report to Correct Person Desired PD Process • Design Done Process BAD Churn Planned Churn Define Program Create Product Verify Product Validate Product Deliverables • BOM • Clay • Geometry • CAE • Tools • MFG Feasibility • DPA Compatibility • CAE validation • 100% CAD/BOM • Attribute Validation • Prototype Builds • Physical Testing • Assumptions • PDL • BOM Metrics In Process Confidence True Measure of Exit Criteria Process Capability/Efficiency • CAD Completion • BOM Completion • Digital Evaluation • Churn Metrics • Release Metrics • Build Performance • Total Cost • BOM Verification • Digital Verification • Styling Status • PDPD Compliance Progress to Plan How done am I • Purpose -> Consumer Types • Functional Managers • Engineers • Supervisors • BLE • Managers + -> VP • Program Management • Decision Makers • Directors/VPs • Process Engineers • Who can Fix Issue • Who Depend on the Data

41. Heuristics • Why wait till the end to find issues, verify along the design process • Enter once and use many • Share info early and often • CAD is your friend • Prototypes are very efficient in finding issues after the money has been spent

42. Heuristics • Map your digital strategy and your design approach with respect to design requirements • The percent of issues found after digital validation is proportional to the percent of errors found during physical validation

43. References • Siemens. [Online] Available http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/en_us/products/teamcenter/solutions_by_product/index.shtml, December 5, 2007. • Ford Motor Company. [Intranet] http://www.methods.ford.com, December 5, 2007

44. References • Patel, Naresh. “DPA Guidelines for Requirements”, 2006. • Seippel, Steve. “Requirements Management”, 2007.