Physics-based Performance Prediction at Goodyear

1. Physics-based Performance Prediction at Goodyear Loren Miller DataMetric Innovations, LLC National Defense Industrial Association "CREATE Physics-based Performance Prediction" March 8, 2011

2. My Background • While at Goodyear, responsible for physics-based performance prediction, high performance computing, and physics research. • Initiated and lead Goodyear's relationship with Sandia National Laboratories. • Now President, DataMetric Innovations, LLC "The Intersection of Science, Engineering, & IT" • Opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.

3. Goodyear Background • Founded in 1898 • Headquartered in Akron, OH • One of the world's leading tire companies • 57 production facilities in 23 countries • $16.3 B in 2009

4. Prototype-based Design • Historically, tires were developed by creating a new design concept, building prototypes, then testing them in the lab and on the road. • The design, build, test cycle is complex, lengthy, and expensive. • Significant resources were capitalized and dedicated to experimental tire building and testing. • Design processes and release procedures were written assuming the design/build/test process.

5. 1992 Business Background • Tire industry is a very competitive oligopoly. • Failed takeover attempt had drained cash reserves. • Under pressure to reduce R&D expenditures, VP's of Research and Product Development sponsored a study of alternative product development methods. • Three alternatives were identified: • More efficient process of building and testing prototypes • Extensive use of predictive testing • Physics-based performance prediction. Physics-based performance prediction was only alternative that might substantially reduce costs over time.

6. 1 Road Test New Products 10 Predictive Tests 1,000 Simulations Scientific Foundation Vision

7. Technical Complexity • Tires are surprisingly complex. • Geometry • Materials • Service conditions • 1992: state-of-the-art performance prediction took months per design for skilled and dedicated finite element analysts. By the time designers got answers,they’d forgotten their questions.

8. Internal Complexity • Modeling Challenges • Incompressible, non-linear, visco-elastic material with high (~40%) cyclic strains (rubber) • Inextensible fiber reinforcements (polyester, steel, nylon, aramid) • Flexible structure (sidewall) • Detailed tread patterns • Wide eigenvalue spectrum • Expensive, low fidelity solutions ~ 60 Million Cycles During an 80,000 Mile Tire Lifetime

9. Material Complexities • First tensile pull to 100% - red circles • Second pull to 200% - blue triangles • Third pull to 300% - brown diamonds • Initial stress/strain for sample pulled to 300% - black squares Hanson, Hawley, and Houlton, Los Alamos National Laboratory, “A Mechanism for the Mullins Effect,” 2006. Extraordinarily complex material properties.

10. Unacceptable Solution Times • Largest model ever run at Goodyear in 1994 had 90,000 degrees of freedom. • Took months to run a smooth, axisymmetric static model. • Estimated minimum model size to simulate tread wear was 250,000 degrees of freedom. • Tread wear requires a tread pattern and rolling at varying slip angles! • Solution times increased as the cube of the model size. • Estimated at 15.6 years on a Cray Y-MP using more memory than Cray ever put in a machine. • By comparison, build and test for tread wear required four to six months. No commercial code was capable of solving this problem.

11. Sandia Partnership • In 1993, Goodyear partnered with Sandia National Laboratories to develop new technology to solve its "intractable problem." • CRADAs included both experimental and computational projects. • Extraordinarily successful collaboration! • Enabled GT to solve intractable design problems. • Enabled Sandia to solve intractable design problems. Win-win collaboration!

12. Fidelity & Time Solution time compressed from 32.2 years to 5 days!

13. Award-Winning Technology

14. Award-Winning Tires

15. Game Changer • 2002 Annual Report: "Our objective this year is very simple: Drive the turnaround of our Company. • 2003 Annual Report: "The (Assurance) tire was developed with unprecedented speed, utilizing our very best technology and extremely talented associates. • 2004 Annual Report: "We accelerated the introduction of high impact new products. • 2009 Annual Report: "Our new product engine is poised to take advantage of the demand for high-value-added tires and to do so with unmatched speed to market. • 2011 Earnings Call, February 20: "Our innovation engine, again, delivered in 2010. The percentage of new products in our overall lineup is the highest ever and is driving record revenue per tire increases, supporting a richer mix and increasing our ability to win in targeted markets." Unmatched speed to market!

16. Lessons Learned • Post mortem finite element analysis did not lead to breakthroughs in time-to-market, cost, or innovation. • Conversion to "innovation engine" took 10+ years of consistent direction and purpose. • Technical partnership was essential. • Paradigm shift from prototype-based to physics-based product development was "gut wrenching" and required extensive verification and validation. • Design process standardization, both platform-based and model-based, was required. • Product designers had to do their own physics-based performance prediction.

17. Bottom Line Results • Product development times were reduced 67%, from three years to one. • Expenditures on prototype building and testing dropped 62%. • Unprecedented string of award-winning new products resulted from the ability to evaluate many more new product alternatives. Physics-based performance prediction is a strategic asset at Goodyear.

18. Concern for Our Future • "The scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. • "This nation must prepare with great urgency to preserve its strategic and economic security. • "We are worried about the future prosperity of the United States." Augustine et al., "Rising Above the Gathering Storm." US National Academies, 2007. Rapidly Approaching Category 5!

19. Global Competition • "Our global competitors are well aware of the great potential of computer simulation. Throughout Europe and Asia, governments are making major investments... • "We are in danger, once again, of producing world-leading science but leaving it to our competitors to harvest the technological and economic advantages." Oden et al., "Simulation-Based Engineering Science." US National Science Foundation, May, 2006. Leaving it to our competitors…

20. International Assessment • "Today we are at a tipping point... • "The world of computer simulation is becoming flatter every day. • "Our continued capability as a nation to lead in simulation-based discovery and innovation is key to our ability to compete in the 21st century." Glotzer et al., "International Assessment of Research and Development in Simulation-Based Engineering and Science." WTEC, 2009. Tianhe -1A