Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 311–325 | Cite as

System reliability based vehicle design for crashworthiness and effects of various uncertainty reduction measures



Reliability-based design optimization of automobile structures for crashworthiness has been studied by many researchers by using either single component probabilistic constraints or single failure mode based probabilistic constraints, while system reliability considerations are mostly disregarded. In this paper, we perform system reliability based design optimization (SRBDO) of an automobile for crashworthiness and analyze the effect of reliability allocation in different failure modes. In addition, effects of various uncertainty reduction measures (e.g., reducing variability in material properties, reducing error of finite element analysis) are investigated and tradeoff plots of uncertainty reduction, system reliability and structural weight are generated. These types of tradeoff plots can be used by a company manager to decide whether to allocate the company resources for employing uncertainty reduction measures or allocating the resources for the excess weight to protect against the unreduced uncertainties. Furthermore, relative importance of automobile structural members in different crash scenarios is quantified.


Automobile crashworthiness System reliability Uncertainty reduction Weight saving 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acar E, Haftka RT (2005) Reliability based aircraft structural design optimization with uncertainty about probability distributions. In: Proceedings of the 6th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 30 May–3 June 2005Google Scholar
  2. Acar E, Rais-Rohani M (2008) Enhanced surrogate modeling via optimum ensemble of metamodels. Struct and Multidisc Optim (published online). doi:10.1007/s00158-008-0230-y
  3. Acar E, Haftka RT, Sankar BV, Qui X (2006) Increasing allowable flight loads by improved structural modeling. AIAA J 44(2):376–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acar E, Haftka RT, Johnson TF (2007) Tradeoff of uncertainty reduction mechanisms for reducing structural weight. J Mech Des 129(3):266–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke SM, Griebsch JH, Simpson TW (2005) Analysis of support vector regression for approximation of complex engineering analyses. ASME J Mech Des 127(11):1077–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dyn N, Levin D, Rippa S (1986) Numerical procedures for surface fitting of scattered data by radial basis functions. SIAM J Sci Statist Comput 7(2):639–659MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Esat I (1999) Genetic algorithm-based optimisation of a vehicle suspension system. Int J Veh Des 21(2/3):148–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fang H, Solanki K, Horstemeyer M (2005) Numerical simulations of multiple vehicle crashes and multidisciplinary crashworthiness optimization. Int J Crashworthiness 10(2):161–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goel T, Haftka RT, Shyy W, Queipo NV (2007) Ensemble of Surrogates. Struct Multidisc Optim 33(3):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gu L, Yang RJ, Tho CH, Makowski M, Faruque O, Li Y (2001) Optimization and robustness for crashworthiness of side impact. Int J Veh Des 25(4):348–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gunn SR (1997) Support vector machines for classification and regression. In: Image speech and intelligent systems research group, University of Southampton, SouthamptonGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamza K, Saitou K (2004) Crashworthiness design using meta-models for approximating of box-section members. In: Proceedings of the 8th Cairo University international conference on mechanical design and production, Cairo, Egypt, vol 1, pp 591–602, 4–6 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  13. Horstemeyer M, Fang H, Solanki K (2004) Energy-based crashworthiness optimization for multiple vehicle impacts. Transportation 2004: Transportation and Environment, pp 11–16Google Scholar
  14. Horstemeyer MF, Solanki K, Steele WG (2005) Uncertainty methodologies to characterize a damage evolution model. In: Plasticity 2005 conference, Kauai, Hawaii, 4–8 JanGoogle Scholar
  15. Ivanovic G (2000) The reliability allocation application in vehicle design. Int J Veh Des 24(2–3):274–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaya N (2006) Optimal design of automotive diaphragm spring with fatigue resistance. Int J Veh Des 40(1/2/3):126–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim H-S, Chen W, Wierzbicki T (2002) Weight and crash optimization of foam-filled three-dimensional “S” frame. Comput Mech 28:417–424MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kodiyalam S, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidisciplinary design optimisation - some formal methods, framework requirements, and application to vehicle design. Int J Veh Des 25(1/2):3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kurtaran H, Eskandarian A, Marzougui D, Bedewi NE (2002) Crashworthiness design optimization using successive response surface approximations. Comput Mech 29:409–421MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee K, Joo W, Song S, Cha I, Park G (2004) Optimization of an automotive side door beam, considering static requirement. In: Proceeding of the institution of mechanical engineers, part D. J Automobile Engineering 218:51–57Google Scholar
  21. Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB, Søndergaard J (2002) DACE - a MATLAB kriging toolbox. In: Informatics and mathematical modelling, Technical University of Denmark, LyngbyGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin JD, Simpson TW (2005) Use of Kriging models to approximate deterministic computer models. AIAA J 43(4):853–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marvis D, Bandte O (1997) A probabilistic approach to multivariate constrained robust design simulation. SAE 97–5508Google Scholar
  24. Mourelatos ZP, Kuczera RC, Latcha M (2006) An efficient Monte Carlo reliability analysis using global and local metamodels. In: Proceedings of 11th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, September, Portsmouth, VAGoogle Scholar
  25. Mullur AA, Messac A (2004) Extended radial basis functions: more flexible and effective metamodeling. In: Proceedings of 10th AIAA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Albany, NY, August 30–Sept 1Google Scholar
  26. Myers RH, Montgomery DC (2002) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Piskie MA, Gioutsos T (1992) Automobile crash modeling and the Monte Carlo method. In: SAE technical paper series, pub. No. 920480. Society of Automotive Engineers, WarrendaleGoogle Scholar
  28. Qu X, Haftka RT, Venkataraman S, Johnson TF (2003) Deterministic and reliability-based optimization of composite laminates for propellant tanks. AIAA J 41(10):2029–2036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Qu X, Haftka RT (2004) Reliability-based design optimization using probabilistic sufficiency factor. Struct Multidisc Optim 27(5):314–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rais-Rohani M, Solanki K, Eamon C (2006) Reliability-based optimization of lightweight automotive structures for crashworthiness. In: 11th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Portsmouth, Virginia, 6–8 September, AIAA Paper 2006-7004Google Scholar
  31. Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI (2006) Gaussian processes for machine learning. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. Robert CP, Casella G (2004) Monte Carlo statistical methods, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Stander N, Roux W, Giger M, Redhe M, Fedorova N, Haarhoff J (2004) A comparison of metamodeling techniques for crashworthiness optimization. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisci plinary analysis and optimization conference, 30 August-1 September, Albany, NY, AIAA Paper No. 2004–4489Google Scholar
  34. Sinha K (2007) Reliability-based multiobjective optimization for automotive crashworthiness and occupant safety. Struct Multidisc Optim 33(3):255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sinha K, Krishnan R, Raghavendra D (2007) Multi-objective robust optimisation for crashworthiness during side impact. Int J Veh Des 43(1/2/3/4):116–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wang L, Basu PK, Leiva JP (2003) Design optimization of automobile welds. Int J Veh Des 31(4):377–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wang L, Beeson D, Wiggs G (2005) Gaussian process metamodels for efficient probabilistic design in complex engineering design spaces. In: ASME 2005 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, Long Beach, CA, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  38. Yang RJ, Tseng L, Nagy L, Cheng J (1994) Feasibility study of crash optimization. In: Gilmore BJ et al (eds) Advances in design automation DE 69(2):549–556.Google Scholar
  39. Yang J, Hwang M, Sung T, Jin Y (1999) Application of genetic algorithm for reliability allocation in nuclear power plants. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 65:229–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang RJ, Chuang C-H, Che X, Soto C (2000a) New applications of topology optimization in automotive industry. Int J Veh Des 23(1/2):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang RJ, Gu L, Liaw L, Gearhart C, Tho CH, Liu X, Wang BP (2000b) Approximations for safety optimization of large systems. In: ASME design automation conference, Paper No: DETC-00/DAC-14245, Baltimore, MD, 10–13 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang RJ, Gu L, Tho C, Choi KK, Youn BD (2002) Reliability-based design optimization of a full vehicle system. AIAA-2002-1758. In: Proc. 43rd AIAA SDM conference, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  43. Youn BD, Choi KK, Yang RJ, Gu L (2004) Reliability-based design optimization for crashworthiness of side vehicle impact. Struct Multidisc Optim 26:272–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zaouk AK, Marzougui D, Bedewi NE (2000a) Development of a detailed vehicle finite element model, Part I: methodology. Int J Crashworthiness 5(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zaouk AK, Marzougui D, Kan CD (2000b) Development of a detailed vehicle finite element model, Part II: material characterization and component testing. Int J Crashworthiness 5(1):37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTOBB University of Economics and TechnologySogutozuTurkey
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Vehicular SystemsMississippi State UniversityMississippi StateUSA

Personalised recommendations