Advertisement

International Journal of Automotive Technology

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 65–72 | Cite as

Automatic Evaluation of Structural Integrity in Crashworthiness Simulations Using Image Analysis

  • Verena DiermannEmail author
  • Peter Middendorf
Article

Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the possibility to evaluate full vehicle crashworthiness simulations automatically. Nowadays the evaluation of full vehicle crashworthiness simulations is done by only a few hard numerical criteria and a lot of soft criteria which get evaluated visually based on engineering experience. This lead to the crashworthiness simulation being regarded as not suitable for automatic evaluation and thus optimization. Therefore the evaluation criteria need to be formalized. Using the example of structural integrity of a left floor in the pole crash load case this paper shows the possibility to filter the objective part in the visual evaluation from the subjective part, deduce evaluation pattern from the objective part and implement those patterns in an automatic evaluation tool. The prototype of the automatic evaluation process is able to generate a numerical parameter which can be used as a restriction in a weight optimization process.

Key words

Crashworthiness simulation Pole crash Structural integrity Automatic evaluation Subjective perception 

Nomenclature

AM

length of the line segment between a pixel with the maximum value and a pixel with the minimum value on which the described pixel can be found

AP

length of the line segment between the described pixel and the pixel with the maximum value

b

width of minimum box around crack

d

deviation

f

heat map value

FI

critical value

g

weighing factor

IQR5

interquartile range

l

length of minimum box around crack

M

number of pixels of one crack

N

number of cracks in one part

r

ranking position

RI

critcical value for crack geometry

Subscripts

0.25

lower quartile

0.75

upper quartile

A

variant A

a

automatic evaluation

d

deviation i: crack number

I

closeness to impact point

j

pixel number

L

length of minimum box around crack

med

median of manual evaluation

min

minimum value

max

maximum value

o

outliers in boxplot

R

closeness to edge

u

variant

w

whisker in boxplot

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Duddeck, F. (2008). Multidisciplinary optimization of car bodies. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 35, 4, 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ghadianlou, A. and Abdullah, S. B. (2013). Crashworthiness design of vehicle side door beams under low-speed pole side impacts. Thin-Walled Structures, 67, 25–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grant, S., Kline, J., Meneghel, I., Quiggin, J. and Tourky, R. (2016). A theory of robust experiments for choice under uncertainty. J. Economic Theory, 165, 124–151.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Hernlund, E., Egenvall, A., Hobbs, S. J., Peterson, M. L., Northrop, A. J., Bergh, A. and Roepstorff, L. (2017). Comparing subjective and objective evaluation of show jumping competition and warm-up arena surfaces. The Veterinary Journal, 227, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (2014). Small Overlap Frontal Crashworthiness Evaluation Rating Protocol (VersionIII).Google Scholar
  6. Johannes, A., Weisskopf, P., Schulin, R. and Boivin, P. (2017). To what extent do physical measurements match with visual evaluation of soil structure?. Soil and Tillage Research, 173, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mansfield, N. (2000). Subjectivity: Theories of the Self from Freud to Haraway. NYU Press. New York, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Nguyen, P. T. L., Lee, J. Y., Yim, H. J., Lee, S. B. and Heo, S. J. (2015a). Analysis of vehicle structural performance during small-overlap frontal impact. Int. J. Automotive Technology 16, 5, 799–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nguyen, P. T. L., Lee, J. Y., Yim, H. J., Kim, H. K., Lee, S. B. and Heo, S. J. (2015b). Optimal design of vehicle structure for improving small-overlap rating. Int. J. Automotive Technology 16, 6, 959–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Oevermann, U. (2005). Objektivität des Protokolls und Subjektivität als Forschungsgegenstand. ZQF-Zeitschrift für Qualitative Forschung 5, 2, 311–336.Google Scholar
  11. Ofochebe, S. M., Enibe, S. O. and Ozoegwu, C. G. (2016). Absorbable energy monitoring scheme: new design protocol to test vehicle structural crashworthiness. Heliyon 2, 5, e00107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stinchcombe, M. B. (2016). Objective and subjective foundations for multiple priors. J. Economic Theory, 165, 263–291.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Automotive Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hardware & Digital TechnologiesR&D Group, Daimler AGWilhelm-Runge-Straße 11UlmGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Aircraft DesignUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations