0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Metamodeling Development for Vehicle Frontal Impact Simulation

[+] Author and Article Information
R. J. Yang

 Ford Motor Company, 2101 Village Road, MD2115, SRL Dearborn, MI 48124ryang@ford.com

N. Wang, C. H. Tho, J. P. Bobineau

 Ford Motor Company, 2101 Village Road, MD2115, SRL Dearborn, MI 48124

B. P. Wang

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,  University of Texas at Arlington, Box 19023 Arlington, TX 76019bpwang@mae.uta.edu

J. Mech. Des 127(5), 1014-1020 (Jan 14, 2005) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1906264 History: Received March 16, 2004; Revised January 14, 2005

Response surface methods or metamodels are commonly used to approximate large computationally expensive engineering systems. Five response surface methods are studied: Stepwise Regression, Moving Least Square, Kriging, Multiquadric, and Adaptive and Interactive Modeling System. A real-world frontal impact design problem is used as an example, which is a complex, highly nonlinear, transient, dynamic, large deformation finite element model. To study the accuracy of the metamodel, the optimal Latin Hypercube Sampling method is used to distribute the sampling points uniformly over the entire design space. The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is used as the error indicator. Convergence rate, widely used in the arena of the finite element method for evaluating new element’s performance, was exploited in this vehicle impact example.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2005 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

AIMS architecture

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

AIMS modeling process

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Frontal crash finite element model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Selected design variables

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Frontal crash CAE procedure

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

RMSE versus normalized sample size for intrusion

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

RMSE versus normalized sample size for HIC

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

The LHS configurations (6N)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Surface and contour plots for normalized intrusion (36N)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Surface and contour plots for normalized HIC (36N)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In