Attachment 0-21

Ref.
Ares(2019)7935390 - 31/12/2019
D3.6: INITIAL VALIDATION

RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES
Work Package WP3 (D3.6)

Lead Authors (Org) Hein Koelman (Koelman Consulting), Salim Belouettar (LIST) &
Dario Campagna (ESTECO),
Contributing Author(s) (Org) Dario Campagna (ESTECO), Carlos Kavka (ESTECO), S. Belouettar
(LIST)
Reviewers (Org) Ahmed Makradi (LIST) and Gaston Rauchs (LIST)
Due Date 31-12-2019
Date 27-12-2019
Version Final version
Dissemination level
PU: Public X
PP: Restricted to other programme participants
RE: Restricted to a group specified by the consortium
CO: Confidential, only for members of the consortium
Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 1 / 40

Versioning and contribution history
Version Date Author Notes
v1.0 06-12-2019 Hein Koelman Initial draft

v1.1 12-12-2019 Dario Campagna Updated draft
V1.2 27-12-2019 Salim Belouetar Extended draft
Revised draft and new

V1.3 28-12-2019 Hein Koelman
inputs
V1.4 30-12-2019 Hein Koelman Revised draft
V1.5 30-12-2019 Dario Campagna New inputs

Hein Koelman, Salim
V-1.6 31-12-2019 Belouettar, Dario Completed Draft
Campagna
Final 31-12-2019 S. Belouettar Final Draft
Disclaimer:
This document’s contents are not intended to replace consultation of any applicable legal
sources or the necessary advice of a legal expert, where appropriate. All information in
this document is provided “as is” and no guarantee or warranty is given that the information
is fit for any particular purpose. The user, therefore, uses the information at its
sole risk and liability. For the avoidance of all doubts, the European Commission has no
liability in respect of this document, which is merely representing the authors’ view.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Versioning and contribution history .......................................................................................... 2
Disclaimer: ......................................................................................................................................... 2
About COMPOSELECTOR ........................................................................................................................ 4
Task and Deliverable descriptions from the project proposal ........................................ 5
Compliance with the work-programme NMBP-23-2016 ................................................... 5
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5
COMPOSELECTOR Business Layer .......................................................................................................... 6
End-user Testing ................................................................................................................................... 10
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Functional Requirements Testing ................................................................................................. 11
Structural Requirements Testing .................................................................................................. 12
End-user Testing and Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 13
Feedback of the Demo testing of the business Layer ........................................................................... 24
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Appendix A: Automatic Business Layer Report............................................................................. 25
1. Diagram: Decision Process ........................................................................................................... 26
1.1. Process: Business layer .................................................................................................................. 26
1.1.1. Process Elements ................................................................................................................ 26
1.2. Process: Engineering layer ............................................................................................................ 28
1.3. Process: Simulation layer .............................................................................................................. 31
2. Complementary Definitions and Elements: definitions ................................................................... 35
2.1. Messages ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix B: Customer Product Design Specification for the Leafspring ................................... 36

LIST of Figures

Figure 1: COMPOSELECTOR BDSS components ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 2: The Business Layer Architecture. ............................................................................................ 6
Figure 3 Identification of decision-makers and roles definitions ........................................................... 7
Figure 4: The web-based -business layer environment. https://business.composelector.eu. .............. 8
Figure 5: The business process and business decisions defined with BPMN and DMN standards. The
BPMN process workflow foe eligibility/approval of a customer order, including MuPIF simulation
and decision making activities based on market and DB information ............................................ 9
Figure 6 : Decision process modelled with DMN .................................................................................... 9
Figure 7: Testing and Validation: Venn Diagram. ................................................................................. 10
Figure 8: Testing and validation methodology ..................................................................................... 11
Figure 9: The testing and validation components. Each of the states in the protocol underwent
individual structural testing as did each module. ......................................................................... 11
Figure 10: Basic BPMN model for structural testing. ........................................................................... 12
Figure 11: BPMN model for Data Object and DMN decision table structural testing. ......................... 12
Figure 12: Workflow describing the composite leafspring part manufacturing. ................................. 13
Figure 13: Schematic representation of the workflow of the material and process selection for
composite leaf-spring. .................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 14: BPMN Process Leafspring.. .................................................................................................. 14

Figure 15: User Tasks: Testing and Validations steps ........................................................................... 15
Figure 16: Cad File Leafspring – Concept #1 ......................................................................................... 20
Figure 17: MODA of the leafspring ....................................................................................................... 23

LIST of Tables
Table 1: Released Materials (typically with released material manufacturers and production locations
and material specifications) .......................................................................................................... 15
Table 2: Released Processes (typically with released materials) .......................................................... 15
Table 3: selected baseline material option and manufacturing process .............................................. 20
Table 4: KPI Dashboard ........................................................................................................................ 21
Table 5: DMN Table .............................................................................................................................. 22
About COMPOSELECTOR
The mission of COMPOSELECTOR is to develop a Business Decision Support System (BDSS),
which integrates materials modelling, business tools and databases into a single end-user’s
workflow to support the complex decision process involved in the selection and design of
polymer-matrix composites1. An overview of the Composelector BDSS platform is presented
in Figure 1. The Business Layer (BPMN based tool) interacts with Material Layer (database
and workflow manager system). The Simulation Layer (MuPIF) provides an infrastructure for
defining and executing distributed simulation workflows, consisting of several linked/coupled
models designed for defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The individual models are
connected to the platform by implementing standardized APIs, allowing for model steering,
data/metadata exchange, distributed and remote computation, monitoring, etc. The
metadata structure is defined by a schema where the metadata can be attached to any
component and validated against this schema. Since the metadata are encapsulated in the
individual components, they can be passed together with the data in one consistent package.
This novel development is also key for the management of the metadata linked to modelling
and simulation tasks.
1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.06.121

Figure 1: COMPOSELECTOR BDSS components
Task and Deliverable descriptions from the project proposal

WP definition: The main goals of WP3 are:
§ To design and implement the BDSS business layer, based on standard notations for
business processes and decision models.
§ To integrate the BDSS business layer with the interoperability layer (MuPIF) and
databases.
§ To initially evaluate the BDSS abilities to enable business decisions.
Task 3.6: Initial evaluation of the Business Decision Layer to enable business: The business
layer will be validated on simple use cases developed in collaboration with industrial partners,
based on the workflows defined in tasks 3.3 and decision support apps. A preliminary
validation of business decision quality based on real KPIs guided by simplified scenarios will
also take place. These simplified scenarios will be used to create example demos that can,
then, be used for documentation, dissemination and marketing purposes.
D3.6 (T3.6): Initial validation results and demo examples.
Compliance with the work-programme NMBP-23-2016

The validation of the business layer of the BDSS matches the scope and expected impact as
described in the call text of NMBP-23-2016. Indeed, the validation of this layer is a key step
towards the implementation of the complete BDSS, contributing to a business decision tool
that is realistic and useful to end-users.
Executive Summary
The aim of this work is to evaluate and demonstrate the capabilities of COMPOSELECTOR
business layer. The proposed validation includes both functional and structural testing. The

testing and validation concern the acceptability, the quality, and to discover potential
problems. Acceptability verifies that the implemented business layer meets end-user
expectations and design requirements. Quality testing is intended to build confidence in the
developed business process modelling approach and system. Problem discovery looks for
discrepancies between specifications, expectations and observed behavior. A conceptual
case study was also selected to demonstrate the capabilities of the tool. This validation and
demonstration process allows to check the correct functioning of the tool, as well as to
identify some limitations/gaps which need to be addressed.
COMPOSELECTOR Business Layer

The main objective of the business layer is to support the COMPOSELECTOR business
decisions making process (Figure 1, Figure 2). The final user of the tool is business decision
maker, not a person involved in technical aspects like the interaction with simulators or model
data formats. In particular, a single workflow will integrate materials modelling, business tools
and databases by following a well-defined ISO standard business process format. This single
workflow will allow accounting for the complete production chain involving all the major
processes and at the same time all possible parameters affecting the costs and other
important factors under consideration. In this way, companies using the COMPOSELECTOR
decision layer, will be able to control, manage and automate the repeatable decisions central
to its business by effectively applying business rules, analytics and optimization technologies.
The use of a standard representation for business processes will improve the decision-making
strategy across the different sectors of the company.

Figure 2: The Business Layer Architecture.
Technology: The business layer will be based on two well-defined standards: BPMN 2.0, the
last version of the Business Process Model Notation standard defined by the Object

Management Group (OMG), ISO standard ISO/IEC 19510:20132, and the DMN, the Decision
Model and Notation standard, also defined by the OMG3.
The business processes: Most business process models today are developed by using the
BPMN 2.0 standard, supported by a large set of tools4, including Cardanit from ESTECO. BPMN
includes a graphic representation for business process workflows, and an associated XML-
based executable representation, which can be used in business related engineering
applications5.
The decision-making process: The DMN standard, which has been designed to work alongside
BPMN, provides a mechanism for modeling the decision-making represented in a BPMN task
within a business process model. By using DMN, it will be possible to specify sequence of
actions to be followed after a decision has been taken, including those that are required to
meet a certain directive, decide who or what participant should perform an activity or create
specific values to be consumed later in the process. DMN in COMPOSELECTOR will support
the identification of the most important decisions, describing their impact on the global
business objectives.
User interaction: it is an essential element required for business decision activities. Decision
makers are expected to interact with the decision system by using the latest web
technologies, not only from desktop computers but also from mobile systems, as currently
supported by the COMPOSELECTOR business layer( Figure 3, Figure 4).
Figure 3 Identification of decision-makers and roles definitions
2
OMG, Business Process Model and Notation (BPMN) version 2.0, ISO/IEC 19510:2013 (2011).
http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/2.0/
3
OMG, Decision Model and Notation (DMN) version 1.1, (2016).
http://www.omg.org/spec/DMN/
4
BPMN implementers list. http://www.bpmn.org/#tabs-implementers
5
D. Campagna et al. Leveraging the BPMN standard to govern engineering processes in a
collaborative environment., IEEE International Symposium, pages 318-323, (2015)

Figure 4: The web-based -business layer environment. https://business.composelector.eu.
The workflow: In the developed business layer, a single graphical workflow includes standard
BPMN task nodes, plus an activity node specifically designed to interact with the MuPIF
simulation layer, task nodes to perform queries to databases (like Granta’s MI) and human
interaction task nodes specifically design to interact with COMPOSELECTOR business decision
makers. Decision nodes, supporting the DMN standard, are implemented in order to
implement decision models in terms of business rules. The workflow presented in Figure 5 is
an example of a business process which represents a decision manager process for
“eligibility/approval” of a customer order, which requires simulation analysis and market
information to determine its current business opportunity. The process starts with a human
interaction step, in which the right person is presented with an order from a customer. This
person gets a request on his tablet or smartphone to connect to a secure web page by using
a web link. When connecting with his web browser using his credentials, he gets the data of
the order and prepares two scenarios for simulation. When he closes his tasks, two simulation
activities in MuPIF are started, may be executed on a cluster or distributed system. When
both simulations finish, a decision maker is contacted, may be selected based on the customer
importance, and all information is presented to him. A set of business rules have been defined
by using DMN (explained later), which guide his decision process, in order to present him only
relevant information. This information can include the results of the simulation and results
obtained from queries to databases (specific like Granta’s DB) and/or price information
coming directly from real-time market sites. Based on that information, the decision maker
takes a guided decision (implemented in terms of DMN) in order to determine the processing
of the customer order.

Exceptions
Reduced boilerplate code
Actors Python scripts

Figure 5: The business process and business decisions defined with BPMN and DMN
standards. The BPMN process workflow foe eligibility/approval of a customer order,
including MuPIF simulation and decision making activities based on market and DB
information
Decision making: The decision-making node implements a decision process in DMN (Figure
6). Decisions are represented in terms of business rules, which automates the most common
decisions and promote consistent results when used many times.

Figure 6 : Decision process modelled with DMN
Based on this decision model, the decision maker is provided with all the information that is
required to take a decision in this particular case, no more and no less. By automating the
procedure, it will not happen that a decision maker could eventually “forget” a step or consider
only partial data, providing a more fair and consistent decision making process across time
and company sectors. Of course, other business process workflows which involve decision
activities for risk evaluation, opportunity analysis, maximizing impact or profit, can be
represented in terms of business process workflows (BPMN 2.0) and decision making rules
(DMN). During the project, the nodes that will interact with the MuPIF simulation
environment will be developed, together with nodes to interact with specific
COMPOSELECTOR databases. The human interaction nodes will be enhanced in order to
support the interaction model required by COMPOSELECTOR business users and DMN
compatible decision making nodes will be implemented. The platform will also be enhanced
to support the innovative concept of “Apps” introduced by COMPOSELECTOR, which are BDSS
tools defined in terms of business process workflows, available to and usable by decision
makers, implementing repeatable decisions activities that are central to the core business of

the companies.
End-user Testing
The validation of the business layer requires attention to a large number of details. To ease
the validation process, we implemented a business layer testing plan which will be to
continuously improve the quality of the COMPOSELECTORE BDSS and business layer
component prior to release. The process of documenting and standardizing the testing and
validation methods are important steps toward meeting recognized international quality
standards in term of quality, design requirements and robustness. Figure 7 shows the
“interaction space” in which the business layer designers, the implementation team and
testers (end-users) must work. The goal of testing is to minimize the operations which were
designed and implemented but not tested.
Structural Functional
Testing Testing
Implemented but not tested
Designed but not yet Implemented

Figure 7: Testing and Validation: Venn Diagram.
The testing is based on a verification and validation document prepared during the design
phase of business layer. Examples of validation of the business layer includes End-user
agreement, business layer design agreement, quality improvement and outcome
improvement. The testing the business layer involves generating scenarios in which the end-
user duplicates business processes encountered in real world use. Emphasis is placed on
evaluating the business layer on not only accuracy but also on the "appropriateness of its
approach and scope.
The business layer is validated on simple use cases developed in collaboration with industrial
partners, based on the workflows defined in Deliverable 3.3 and decision support apps. A
preliminary validation of business decision quality based on real KPIs guided by simplified
scenarios will also take place. These simplified scenarios will be used to create example demos
that can, then, be used for documentation, dissemination and marketing purposes.
Methodology
We created a verification and validation document, which described, in detail, methods to be
used in testing and standards for developing testing plans (Figure 8). The testing plan contains
different parts (Figure 9)designed to test both the knowledge base, its implementation and
its usability.

Implementation
Development of testing plan
and test cases
Revise test case
Testing by end-users and

improvement team yes
Problems during testing Problems with test case

no
yes
no
Continue to next stage of

testing

Figure 8: Testing and validation methodology

Definition
Scenario
Data Requirements Decisions

business Process
BPMN, DMN, USERS TASKS, API,

modelling
DB, interoperability,
Business Decision
Decision KPIs management KPIs management

Making
Capabilities and evaluation and evaluation

Figure 9: The testing and validation components. Each of the states in the protocol
underwent individual structural testing as did each module.
Structural Testing: The structural testing involves testing the function of the business layer
by testing the approach and method of implementation. This testing requires specific and
detailed knowledge of the structure of the Business layer. To test the Business layer modules,
we verify the operation of each state using a combination of robust and worst cast testing.
Functional Testing: Functional testing is concerned with testing the functionality of a business
layer without regard to the method of implementation. Test cases for functional testing are
inspired by real world observations and derived from business layer design specifications.
Test Case Selection: Our test case is chosen to perform both structural and functional testing.
Error Handling: An incident report is created which notes the observed effect, the test
conditions which lead to the error and the probable location of the error. Testing on al
modules which may be affected by the erroneous module is stopped until corrections can be
made.
Functional Requirements Testing

The business layer requirements have been analysed and discussed as part of the BDSS

development process. In order to assess the implementation of the requirements, two
different types of testing have been conducted, one at the high level of requirements, and
one at the lower level of software. At a high level, the implementation of the requirements
were cross-checked by the software developers involved in the project at ESTECO. In
particular, developers involved in the integration framework checked all the requirements of
the single components (including the visualisation interface), and the developers of the
visualisation interface checked the achievement of the requirements of the integrated
framework. At a lower level, usual software engineering practices have been adopted to
ensure the correct implementation of the components.
Structural Requirements Testing

The structural requirement testing focused on validating the compliance to structural
requirements of the visual interfaces and the BPMN engine. Testing was performed using
BPMN models of increasing complexity. Each BPMN model focused on the verification of
certain modules of the Business layer. Figure 10 and Figure 11 depict two of the models used
for testing and now part of the documentation of https://business.composelector.eu.

Figure 10: Basic BPMN model for structural testing.

Figure 11: BPMN model for Data Object and DMN decision table structural testing.
The BPMN model in Figure 10 is a basic example that tests the correct operation of different
modules: model repository, BPMN engine (process and script execution), User task web
module, BPMN & DMN management and execution.
The BPMN model in Figure 11 focus on testing the integration of BPMN with DMN and the
use of Data Objects. The Business Rule task in the model is connected to a DMN decision
table. Data Objects are used to retrieve the output of the first User Task and to provide inputs

to the decision table. This BPMN model tests the implementation of data transfer through
Data Object, the DMN engine module and the interactions between the BPMN engine and
the DMN engine.
Figure 14 depicts another BPMN model used for structural testing. It represents a simplified
scenario of the leafspring case study. This model tests the implementation in the BPMN
engine of collaborating processes, messages, different types of events and different types of
gateways. This example puts to tests the User task web module interface. In particular, the
web interface for User Tasks manipulating KPIs and simulation information uses tables for
data insertion and data visualization.
In addition to the quantitative feedback, qualitative feedback, e.g. suggestions for
improvements, have been provided by the end-user and translators namely Koelman
Consulting and LIST. The overall impression of the system was good. The system would be
useful for decision making for material selection and design. With the help of the test
participants’ minor issues that occurred with respect to the usability of the system could be
extracted, and these can be addressed before the end of the project.
End-user Testing and Evaluation

One use case study (leafspring) was selected to demonstrate the retrofitting capabilities of
the business layer (Figure 12). The proposed user-case is towards the application of the BDSS
for material selection and manufacturing process for composite leafspring (See deliverable
D6.1 for more details). This application would illustrate the capability of BDSS for material and
process selection for large production (30,000-50,000 parts/year). In this specific application,
performance (stiffness, fatigue, damping), weight, time cycle, processing, material usage, cost
and life cycle engineering are the key performance indicators. The example of the leafspring
could be extended to all the application where the integration of the composite material in
the car body structure is concerned.
Fibre Textile Preforming
Resin
Part
Infusion Curing
performance

Figure 12: Workflow describing the composite leafspring part manufacturing.

Residual Stress,
Strength
Technical KPIs Stiffness, Fatigue
Impregnation
Resin
Initial Process
Modelling
Design (RTM, HP-RTM)
Preform
and KPIs Fibre
Permeability
Preform
Cycle Time,
Processing Cost, Value
Business KPIs Conditions, Modelling
Materila
Usage

Figure 13: Schematic representation of the workflow of the material and process selection for
composite leaf-spring.
For the testing of the BDSS Business-Layer with the composite leafspring we considered 2 of
the KPI’s (Figure 13): The first one is the mass requirement of the leafspring and the second
KPI the stiffness requirement. Figure 14 shows the business, engineering and simulation layer
for the leafspring use case. For each of the user tasks (Figure 15) the input and output is
described below.

Figure 14: BPMN Process Leafspring..

2: Select Baseline
1: Translate 3: Define Baseline
materials and
Requirement CAD Design
processes
6: Prepare 4: Assess
5: Select Modeling
Simulation & Run Simulation to
Workflow
Simulation perform
7: Prepare KPI
data

Figure 15: User Tasks: Testing and Validations steps
1) Translate Requirement:
Input:
Customer Product Design Specification for leafspring (Document which includes all of the
required product performance, part pricing, timing, required production volumes, list of
released materials, released manufacturing processes. Part of the specification is Table 1 on
released materials and Table 2 on released manufacturing processes. Appendix B shows part
of the original Customer Product Design Specification document for the leafspring.
Table 1: Released Materials (typically with released material manufacturers and production
locations and material specifications)
Resin Materials: Fiber Materials:

1. DER 330/331 epoxy 5. E-Glass UD Rovings,
2. DETDA -Ethacure 100 6. E-Glass NCF UD 100g/m2
3. IPDA 7. S-Glass UD Rovings,
4. TETA/DETA 8. S-Glass NCF UD 100g/m2
9. CF UD Rovings:
10. CF NCF UD. 100g/m2
Table 2: Released Processes (typically with released materials)
Released Processes (typically with released materials)

1. HP-RTM
2. Compression RTM

Output:
1.1. Table of KPI’s in the shape of the dashboard (table 4)

1.2. All of the released potential materials and processes (Table 1, Table 2 into the
materials database – Granta MI) with material data as far as possible.
2) Select Baseline materials and processes:

Input:
- 3.1 Customer Specification (= Input 1.1). – Leafspring Design Specification
- 3.2 KPI Dashboard (= table 4)
Output: Initial Set
- 4.1 request for a CAD baseline design
- 4.2 selected baseline material option and manufacturing process (Table 3)
- 4.3 For all of the possible materials and process to be evaluated
For the request of baseline design in CAD (to product development department): Baseline
design includes geometry, materials selected, material placement (fibre layers/orientation)
for specified/selected manufacturing process. Baseline materials and processes selected out
of the lists in Table 1 and Table 2. As mentioned we choose 2 KPI’s for evaluation in this
validation: The Part Mass and the Part Stiffness.
For the Part Mass: this one is obtained from the CAD model with the selected materials and
the state of concept design of the leafspring.
For Part Stiffness: this will be obtained through running simulation workflows for the
leafspring. Different MODA’s (Figure 17) to be considered to generate data on the leafspring
stiffness and will be driven by the required level of uncertainty for the. Stiffness of the
leafspring.
3) Define Baseline CAD Design:

Input:
- 5.1 Leafspring Design Specification (packaging space, assembly, connectivity data/info)
- 5.2 Selected baseline materials from database and baseline process from process
database
Output:
- 6.1 CAD baseline design, including baseline materials. (fibre lay-up/orientation),
boundary conditions (bolts, clamping, etc.) (Figure 16)

The product development department, on the request, develops the baseline CAD design for
the leafspring with the selected initial baseline materials. The leafspring product design
specification (Appendix B) contains information needed for the development of the CAD, for
example the available packaging space and connectivity information.
4) Assess Simulation to perform

Input
- 7.1 CAD data
- 7.2 KPI’s
Output
- 8.1 List simulations to be performed:

On the output 8.1 of the above user task: List of Simulations (or other calculations-could be

app’s e.g. NPV app):
Calculate Mass of the part – from CAD data file. (for KPI: Part Mass) -> request to CAD SME
to obtain the mass from the CAD data
Details for the stiffness simulation results to be obtained: Calculate stiffness over
displacement for a weight-loaded spring with the required level of uncertainty. Geometric
Non-linear stiffness analysis of pre-loaded leaf-spring: 60% of vehicle weight -pre-loading
onto leafspring: 30% at each bolt location of the spring. Load of 2000N and calculate load-
displacement curve. Stiffness from load-displacement average over 2000N. The following 5
scenarios are run with the parameters on uncertainty, cost and time and available resources
for the modelling tasks given to the workflow selection:

Scenario's Uncertainty Cost (in PM) Time (weeks)
1 10% 10% 2
2 20% 20% 2
3 20% 20% 1
4 5% 5% 8
5 5% 5% 4

Available resources: FE Structural Analysist (1 FTE), Constitutive Modelling Expert (0.5 FTE)
5) Select Modeling Workflow:

Input:
- 9. the output of the assess simulation to be performed: Stiffness Modelling request
(5 different scenario’s)
Output:
- 10. Selected workflow through the use of DMN table or indication that there is no
workflow available for the given request with input. E.g. for the situation that there
is not enough time/budget/resource available to execute a workflow or the requested
level of uncertainty is low versus what the workflows can provide within
time/budget/available resources. In case of no available workflow the process goes to
the user task re-assess simulation. In that step, the scenario requested can be
changed, e.g. by providing more budget, time or resources available to be able to run
a workflow and/or to increase the required uncertainty level.

Possible modelling workflows to obtain stiffness performance of the leafspring:
Workflow 1:
Step 1. Finite element analysis with database stiffness properties of the matrix and the fibre.
Idealized fibre orientation and distribution (as per CAD)
Input Needed:
- Material Data: Stiffness properties matrix and fibre (from database)

- Fibre orientation in the part: All UD- fibre aligned in leafspring length part: (from CAD
part definition)
- Fibre volume ratio in the part: constant and at 60% (from CAD)
- Geometry of the part (from CAD) – develop into shell structure through mid-plane of
part CAD definition
- Boundary conditions and loading: (from CAD) and from part design specification (vehicle
weight and load requirements leafspring)
- Finite element settings: element type, mesh density, modelling approach: geometric
non-linear, material linear
Output:
- Load-deflection diagram

Workflow 2:
Step 1. Digimat software for continuum micromechanical modelling of the matrix – fibre.
Step 2. Finite element modelling of the leafspring. Idealized fibre orientation and
distribution (as per CAD)

Input Needed:
- Material Data: Stiffness properties matrix and fibre (from database). Output is Non-
linear stiffness properties (from Step 1).
- Fibre orientation in the part: All UD- fibre aligned in leafspring length part: (from CAD
part definition)
- Fibre volume ratio in the part: constant and at 60% (from CAD)
part CAD definition
non-linear, material non-linear
Output:

Workflow 3:
Step 1. Preforming analysis of the fibre form in the leafspring tool – ESI process modelling
Step 2. Micromechanical continuum modelling of the matrix – fibre. For the different ranges
of fibre orientations and distribution (as of step 1)
Step 3. Continuum modelling (Macroscale) of the leafspring. fibre orientation and
distribution as per pre-forming analysis (from step 1)

Input Needed:
- Material Data: Stiffness properties matrix and fibre (from database). Non-linear stiffness
properties.
- Pre-forming CAD tool design – based on part CAD design
- Pre-forming conditions: clamping forces, preforming press settings
- Fibre orientation in the part: Output from pre-forming calculation (step 1)
- Fibre volume ratio in the part: Output from pre-forming calculation (step 1)

- Local Fibre Orientation/Volume ratio (output step1) are inputs for step 2 to calculate
local non-linear stiffness properties (step2)
part CAD definition
non-linear, material non-linear
Output:
Table 4: KPI Dashboard
Minimum
Target
KPI Unit Acceptable Importance Linked to KPI
Performance
Performance
Part Mass kg 4,5 4,8 High cost, NPV
Part Stiffness N/mm 300 285 High
Cost, NPV, Part
Cycle time sec 280 300 High
Mass
Cycle Time, Part
Part Cost Euro 50 52,5 Critical
Mass, NPV

Table 5 is created for the above selection of modelling workflows. In addition, Figure 17
provides the MODA for the leafspring use case:
6) Prepare Simulation & Run Simulation:

Input
- 11.1 workflow indicated from the select workflow – each of the 5 scenarios ran
- 11.2 data needed as per the above workflows described above.
Output
- 12.1: Apart from intermediate outputs from the workflow, the required output for feeding
the evaluation of the KPI on stiffness are the load-deflection outputs from the analysis.
For the different workflow’s different load-deflection results are obtained.

Workflow 1 Workflow 2 Workflow 3
displacement (mm) Load (N) Load (N) Load (N)
0 0 0 0
10 2500 2550 2450
20 5300 5370 5200
30 9000 9100 8800
40 13000 13150 12700


7) Prepare KPI data:
Input
- 13.1. The load-deflection data from the analysis workflow
Output
- 14.1. The processed simulation data: In this case the average stiffness N/mm @ 30mm
deflection of the leafspring.

Workflow 1 Workflow 2 Workflow 3
stiffness @ 300 N/mm 303 N/mm 293 N/mm
30mm
The value of the processed stiffness is fed into the KPI dashboard (table 4)
Figure 16: Cad File Leafspring – Concept #1

Table 3: selected baseline material option and manufacturing process
Manufacturing Process
Process HP-RTM
Select Fiber Type GF - NCF
Fiber Volume part Vf 30%
Fiber Type E-glass manufacturer: Seartex
Fiber Form UD-NCF. 985 g/m2
Resin Type Thermoset
Resin Formulation Epoxy DER 330 epoxy manufacturer: Olin
Hardener TETA - DEH 24 manufacturer: Olin
Resin:Hard. ratio:
Ratio 1:1

Table 4: KPI Dashboard
Minimum
Target
KPI Unit Acceptable Importance Linked to KPI
Performance
Performance
Part Mass kg 4,5 4,8 High cost, NPV
Part Stiffness N/mm 300 285 High
Cost, NPV, Part
Cycle time sec 280 300 High
Mass
Cycle Time, Part
Part Cost Euro 50 52,5 Critical
Mass, NPV


Table 5: DMN Table

Molecular modelling Atomistic model (#1)
Atom Mechanical properties (Stress-

Molecular Dynamics positions and strain curve, mechanical moduli,
Material (Resin type; molecular Equilibrium velocities Poisson ratio, Lamè constants, and
Non-equilibrium linear elastic constant)
structure; filler type and
functionalization; filler
volume/weight fraction, filler
dimensions and aspect ratio,
filler/polymer compatibilizer) Interfacial properties (Density;
- Operating conditions Interaction energies, normal and
(Temperature) shear separation forces between filler
and polymer)
Thermal properties (Matrix, interface

and nanocomposite thermal
conductivity)
Rheological properties (Viscoelastic

- All previous inputs DPD Bead properties, relaxation spectra)
- Degree of filler positions and Mechanical properties (same output
alignment velocities as from atomistic model)
Mesoscopic model (#2)
Modelling resin & nanofiller

+ fibers
Material (Resin type, Fiber Displacement,
type, Fiber volume content) Properties of the tows
Solid mechanics Forces &
(made of thousands of
Internal
filaments)
variables
Continuum model (#3)
Modelling fibrous composite reinforcement preforming
- Fiber geometry Displacement, Preform Properties (fiber volume

- Fiber distribution Solid mechanics Forces & content, deformation field)
Internal variables
Modelling of impregnation
Continuum model (#5) Infusion pattern, Infusion
- Type of infusion Stress field and
time, Fibre displacement
Fluid mechanics Displacements
Temperature
Modelling of curing
Displacement Cure time, Cure development,
Type of curing field
Solid mechanics Residual stress, Distortion
Modelling component
- Material (Resin type; Fiber Displacement, Mechanical response
type) Forces & (Deformation, Stress, Strain, Failure
Solid mechanics
- Performance conditions (Load Internal variables and Damage)
Figure 17: MODA of the leafspring

Feedback of the Demo testing of the business Layer
Several suggestions have been collected, and for analysis:
1. The terminology used needs to be checked. For instance: Translate Qualitative
Requirement: Not sure about term “qualitative” – could just be “Translate
Requirements”
2. Extension of tool to cover other sectors than composites.
3. Interface: Regarding the interface most comments was oriented to simplify the
interface, to increase the interaction, to make it scalable to mobile devices, and to the
possibility of creating synthetic reports and data analysis.
4. Need for legend and/or contextual information. The users commented that the
interface can appear very complex as much information is displayed. However,
without guidance the user can have some difficulties in understanding all aspects.
5. Need of clarification about the BPMN and DMN uses. Specifically, it emerged that
some testers were curious about how to a PBMN process could be implemented is a
company has no experience in business process modelling.
6. Need of promotion through the material and manufacturing industries in order to
increase the commitment of end-users.
7. Need to check where to store and how to link CAD design and associated conditions
(materials, boundary conditions, etc.). Also, this may be requested at the engineering
layer.
8. Email- document specifying the each of the KPI’s to be evaluated (Table 3)
9. For all of the possible materials and process to be evaluated- material data entries and
ID need to done into the material database.
10. To develop the content of the DMN table, which is case specific, will require training
and also further agreement on definition/evaluation of items in that DMN Tables, e.g.
Uncertainty.
11. It will be useful to develop analysis of output of using the DMN table, e.g. to
understand why there is not an workflow available.
12. The values for the KPI’s and the corresponding dashboard table entries will evolve
during design phases. It is therefore needed to be able to track all designs and design
changes (which could include material changes, part geometry changes, modeling
workflow changes etc), with their corresponding status of the KPI values. It would
then be possible to look back at decisions and on what basis they were made.
Conclusion
We have implemented testing plan which has helped up meet our continuous quality
improvement goals of the business layer and the whole BDSS. Systematic, through testing of
the business layer prior to release to general users is a critical aspect of high quality of the
business modelling and the BDSS. Omission of this step may lead to potentially wrong
business workflows and fatal mistakes relying on a business process with outputs of unreliable
quality. Thorough testing for validation requires and significant effort mainly because the
tools required to facilitate testing of the business layer and the complete business decision
support system (BDSS) are not available.

Appendix A: Automatic Business Layer Report
PROCESS REPORT
Created
December 30, 2019 - 11:19 AM

1. Diagram: Decision Process
1.1. Process: Business layer
1.1.1. Process Elements
Translate requirements
USER TAS
Incoming Outgoing
START EVENT MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE THROW EVENT
startEvents_9b92822a-a5fb-1fb3-f3fa- Request KPIs evaluation
f4b256fa1cd3
Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
##unspecified
Request KPIs evaluation

MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE THROW EVENT
Incoming Outgoing
USER TASK MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE CATCH EVENT
Translate requirements Evaluation completed
MESSAGE START EVENT
KPIs evaluation received
1. Diagram: Decision Process 26 / 40

Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
KPIs evaluation request
Evaluation completed
MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE CATCH EVENT
Incoming Outgoing
MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE THROW EVENT USER TASK
Request KPIs evaluation Select material
MESSAGE END EVENT
KPIs evaluation completed
Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Evaluation data
Select material
USER TASK
Incoming Outgoing
MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE CATCH EVENT END EVENT
Evaluation completed endEvents_dd795916-117f-b7f3-a659-
4fb4d6cb1ea1
Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
##unspecified
endEvents_dd795916-117f-b7f3-a659-4fb4d6cb1ea1
END EVENT
Incoming
USER TASK
Select material

1.2. Process: Engineering layer
KPIs evaluation received

MESSAGE START EVENT
Incoming Outgoing
MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE THROW EVENT USER TASK
Request KPIs evaluation Select baseline material and process
Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Select baseline material and process

USER TASK
Incoming Outgoing
MESSAGE START EVENT USER TASK
KPIs evaluation received Define baseline CAD design
Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
##unspecified
Define baseline CAD design

USER TASK
Incoming Outgoing
USER TASK USER TASK
Select baseline material and process Assess simulation to perform

Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
##unspecified
Assess simulation to perform

USER TASK
Incoming Outgoing
USER TASK EXCLUSIVE GATEWAY
Define baseline CAD design Parallel Gateway_451
Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
##unspecified
Incoming Outgoing
USER TASK MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE THROW EVENT
Assess simulation to perform Request simulation
USER TASK
Reassess simulation
Request simulation
Incoming Outgoing
EXCLUSIVE GATEWAY EVENT BASED GATEWAY
Parallel Gateway_451 Event Based Gateway_420
MESSAGE START EVENT
messageStartEvents_4b06e959-1a57-
0803-8ca8-35cab337b796
Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Simulations request

Incoming Outgoing
EVENT BASED GATEWAY USER TASK
Event Based Gateway_420 Reassess simulation
MESSAGE END EVENT
No workflow available
Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Simulation data ready

Incoming Outgoing
EVENT BASED GATEWAY USER TASK
Event Based Gateway_420 Prepare KPIs data
Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Simulation Data
Reassess simulation
USER TASK
Incoming Outgoing
MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE CATCH EVENT EXCLUSIVE GATEWAY
No workflow available Parallel Gateway_451
Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
##unspecified

Prepare KPIs data
USER TASK
Incoming Outgoing
MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE CATCH EVENT MESSAGE END EVENT
Simulation data ready KPIs evaluation completed
Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
##unspecified
KPIs evaluation completed

MESSAGE END EVENT
Incoming Outgoing
USER TASK MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE CATCH EVENT
Prepare KPIs data Evaluation completed
Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Evaluation data
1.3. Process: Simulation layer

Incoming Outgoing
MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE THROW EVENT BUSINESS RULE TASK
Request simulation Select modeling workflow
Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Simulations request

Select modeling workflow
BUSINESS RULE TASK
Incoming Outgoing
MESSAGE START EVENT EXCLUSIVE GATEWAY
messageStartEvents_4b06e959-1a57- Modeling workflow available?
0803-8ca8-35cab337b796
Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
Modeling_Workflow
Modeling workflow available?

EXCLUSIVE GATEWAY
Incoming Outgoing
BUSINESS RULE TASK USER TASK
Select modeling workflow Prepare simulation
through Yes
MESSAGE END EVENT
through No
Prepare simulation
USER TASK
Incoming Outgoing
EXCLUSIVE GATEWAY SCRIPT TASK
Modeling workflow available? Run simulation
through Yes
Attributes
IMPLEMENTATION
##unspecified

MESSAGE END EVENT
Incoming Outgoing
EXCLUSIVE GATEWAY MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE CATCH EVENT
Modeling workflow available? No workflow available
through No
Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Run simulation
SCRIPT TASK
Incoming Outgoing
USER TASK MESSAGE INTERMEDIATE THROW EVENT
Prepare simulation Simulation data ready
Attributes
SCRIPT FORMAT
text/python
CODE
print("Hello world!")

Incoming Outgoing
SCRIPT TASK END EVENT
Run simulation endEvents_82d4c447-886b-2e21-71de-
ffd292eeba19

Attributes
MESSAGE REFERENCE
Simulation Data
Incoming

2. Complementary Definitions and Elements: definitions
2.1. Messages

MESSAGE
Message for requesting evaluation of KPIs
Attributes
ITEM SUBJECT REFERENCE
Table
Simulations request
MESSAGE
Attributes
Table
Evaluation data
MESSAGE
Attributes
Table
Simulation Data
MESSAGE
Attributes
Table
MESSAGE
2. Complementary Definitions and Elements: definitions 35 / 40

Appendix B: Customer Product Design
Specification for the Leafspring

Leafspring Product Design Specification
D3.6: Initial validation results and demo examples 36

1. Introduction
2. Released materials and processes
3. Leafspring Design and Design Constraints
- Packaging Space
- Connections and Assembly
4. Leafspring Functional Requirements
5. Production requirements
- Yearly production volumes scenarios
6. End-Of-Life requirements
- recyclability
7. Sustainability requirements

1. Introduction
The leafspring product design specification sets out the requirements for the leafspring in all its
aspects. It includes the production volume requirement with the expected volume needs as well as
the required flexibility for higher and lower volumes.
Pricing of the leafspring is in a separate agreement document.
2. Released materials and processes
The leafspring is to be made out of composites and can be made using one of the following
processes, which are released:
Processes:
Preforming:
§ Preforming of dry fiber form with liquid binder
§ Molding:
High Pressure Resin Transfer Moulding (HP-RTM)
Compression Resin Transfer Molding (CRTM)
The following is a list of released materials with the above processes:
Matrix Materials: Epoxy Formulations

Formulation 1:
TM
- DER 330 Manufacturer OLIN
TM
- TETA DEH 24 Manufacturer OLIN
- Hardener ratio 1:1. +/- 10%
Formulation 2:
TM
TM
- IPDA -Aradur 42 Manufacturer Huntsmann
Formulation 3:
TM
TM
- DETDA- Ethacure 100 Manufacturer Albermarle
Fiber Materials:
Glass Fiber:
- E-glass. UD-NCF. 985 g/m2 Manufacturer Seartex
• Ultra Fatigue UD
Carbon Fiber:
- Zoltek PANEX 35 50K 314 g/m2 Manufacturer Seartex

3. Leafspring Design and Design Constraints
- Packaging Space
Length
400mm
Height Clamp
180mm
Bolt
Length
1100mm
Bolt
Width
70mm
60mm
- Connections and Assembly
4. Leafspring Functional Requirements
§ Operating conditions. Functional performance has to be met for the temperature ranging
between -40C and +85C and Relative Humidity ranging from 10%-100%.
§ Mechanical Requirements.
§ Stiffness loaded: 300 N/mm. Minimum stiffness 285 N/mm
§ Mass Requirements.
§ Target weight: 4.5 kg. Maximum Weight: 4.8 kg
5. Production requirements
- SOP January 2023. EOP December 2028
- Yearly production volumes scenarios
2023 25000
2024 50000

2025 50000
2026 50000
2027 50000
2028 50000
Pessimistic scenario:
2023 20000
2024 40000
2025 40000
2026 40000
2027 40000
2028 40000
Optimistic scenario:
2023 30000
2024 60000
2025 60000
2026 60000
2027 60000
2028 60000
6. End-Of-Life requirements
- recyclability
7. Sustainability requirements

Attachment 0-21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attachment 0-21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

D3.6: INITIAL VALIDATION

Work Package WP3 (D3.6)

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 1 / 40

Version Date Author Notes

v1.0 06-12-2019 Hein Koelman Initial draft

Revised draft and new

V1.4 30-12-2019 Hein Koelman Revised draft

V1.5 30-12-2019 Dario Campagna New inputs

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 2 / 40

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 3 / 40

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 4 / 40

Task and Deliverable descriptions from the project proposal

Compliance with the work-programme NMBP-23-2016

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 5 / 40

COMPOSELECTOR Business Layer

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 6 / 40

Figure 3 Identification of decision-makers and roles definitions

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 7 / 40

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 8 / 40

Reduced boilerplate code

Actors Python scripts

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 9 / 40

Implemented but not tested

Designed but not yet Implemented

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 10 / 40

Testing by end-users and

Problems during testing Problems with test case

Continue to next stage of

Data Requirements Decisions

BPMN, DMN, USERS TASKS, API,

Decision KPIs management KPIs management

Capabilities and evaluation and evaluation

Functional Requirements Testing

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 11 / 40

Structural Requirements Testing

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 12 / 40

End-user Testing and Evaluation

Fibre Textile Preforming

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 13 / 40

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 14 / 40

Resin Materials: Fiber Materials:

Table 2: Released Processes (typically with released materials)

Released Processes (typically with released materials)

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 15 / 40

2) Select Baseline materials and processes:

3) Define Baseline CAD Design:

4) Assess Simulation to perform

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 16 / 40

5) Select Modeling Workflow:

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 17 / 40

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 18 / 40

6) Prepare Simulation & Run Simulation:

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 19 / 40

Figure 16: Cad File Leafspring – Concept #1

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 20 / 40

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 21 / 40

Deliverable D3.6- INITIAL VALIDATION RESULTS AND DEMO EXAMPLES 22 / 40

Molecular modelling Atomistic model (#1)

Atom Mechanical properties (Stress-

Thermal properties (Matrix, interface

Rheological properties (Viscoelastic

Mesoscopic model (#2)