The vehicle performances for the side impact test and the roof crush test are dependent on the side structure design of a vehicle. Crash optimization can be employed to enhance the performances. A meta-model-based structural optimization technique is generally utilized in the optimization process since the technique is simple to use. However, the meta-model-based optimization is not suitable for problems with many design variables such as topology and topometry optimizations. A crash optimization methodology is proposed to consider both the side impact test and the roof crush test. The equivalent static loads method is adopted for the side impact test and the enforced displacement method is adopted for the roof crush test, and the two methods are integrated. A design formulation is defined. The survival distance from the side impact test and the roof strength for the roof crush test are used for the design constraints. Crash optimization is performed for a practical large-scale structure. For conceptual design, reinforcement of the B-pillar is determined by using topometry optimization, and size and shape optimizations are employed for a detailed design to satisfy the design constraints while the mass is reduced.
Side impact crashworthiness evaluation: crash test protocol (version X). Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2017.
2.
ArbelaezRABakerBCNolanJM. Delta vs for IIHS side impact crash tests and their relationship to real-world crash severity. In: 19th international technical conference on the enhanced safety of vehicles, Washington, DC, 6–9 June 2005. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
3.
MarzouguiDSamahaRRCuiC, et al. Extended validation of the finite element model for the 2010 Toyota Yaris Passenger Sedan. Report, National Crash Analysis Center, Ashburn, VA, July2012.
4.
LeeYParkGJ.Non-linear dynamic response structural optimization for frontal-impact and side-impact crash tests. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2017; 231: 600–614.
5.
ParkGJ.Analytic methods for design practice. Berlin: Springer, 2007.
6.
TeyJYRamliRAbdullahAS.A new multi-objective optimization method for full-vehicle suspension systems. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2016; 230: 1443–1458.
7.
WangCQWangDFZhangS.Design and application of lightweight multi-objective collaborative optimization for a parametric body-in-white structure. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2016; 230: 273–288.
8.
YangRWangNThoC, et al. Metamodeling development for vehicle frontal impact simulation. J Mech Des2005; 127: 1014–1020.
9.
LimJHParkJSYunYW, et al. Design of an airbag system of a mid-sized automobile for pedestrian protection. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2015; 229: 656–669.
10.
DuddeckF.Multidisciplinary optimization of car bodies. Struct Multidiscip O2008; 35: 375–389.
11.
YangRJGuLThoCH, et al. Multidisciplinary design optimization of a full vehicle with high performance computing. In: 19th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, fluid dynamics and co-located conferences, Anaheim, CA, 11–14 June 2001. Reston, VA: AIAA.
12.
Sobieszczanski-SobieskiJKodiyalamSYangR.Optimization of car body under constraints of noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), and crash. Struct Multidiscip O2001; 22: 295–306.
13.
TovarAPatelNMNieburGL, et al. Topology optimization using a hybrid cellular automaton method with local control rules. J Mech Design2006; 128: 1205–1216.
14.
ChoiWSParkGJ.Transformation of dynamic loads into equivalent static loads based on modal analysis. Int J Numer Meth Eng1999; 46: 29–43.
15.
ParkGJ.Technical overview of the equivalent static loads method for non-linear static response structural optimization. Struct Multidiscip O2011; 43: 319–337.
16.
YiSILeeJYParkGJ.Crashworthiness design optimization using equivalent static loads. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2012; 226: 23–38.
17.
YiSILeeHAParkGJ.Optimization of a structure with contact conditions using equivalent loads. J Mech Sci Technol2011; 25: 773–782.
18.
KimYParkGKolonayR, et al. Nonlinear response structural optimization of a joined wing using equivalent loads. AIAA J2008; 46: 2703–2713.
19.
JeongSBYoonSXuS, et al. Non-linear dynamic response structural optimization of an automobile frontal structure using equivalent static loads. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2010; 224: 489–501.
20.
JeongSBYiSIKanCD, et al. Structural optimization of an automobile roof structure using equivalent static loads. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile Engineering2008; 222: 1985–1995.
21.
LeeHAParkGJ.Nonlinear dynamic response topology optimization using the equivalent static loads method. Comput Method Appl M2015; 283: 956–970.
22.
MüllerschönHErhartASchumacherP. Topology and topometry optimization of crash applications with the equivalent static load method. In: 10th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, Orlando, FL, May 19–24 2013.
23.
LeeHAParkGJ.Topology optimization for structures with nonlinear behavior using the equivalent static loads method. J Mech Design2012; 134: 031004.
24.
ChoiWHLeeYYoonJM, et al. Structural optimization for roof crush test using an enforced displacement method. Int J Automot Techn2018; 19: 291–299.
JosuttisNM.The C++ standard library: a tutorial and reference. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2012.
29.
Roof strength test protocol (Ver. III). Arlington, VA: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2016.
30.
KimYIParkGJKolonayR, et al. Nonlinear dynamic response structural optimization of a joined-wing using equivalent static loads. J Aircraft2009: 46: 821–831.
31.
LiaoL. A study of inertia relief analysis. In: AIAA 52nd structural dynamics and materials conference, Denver, CO, 4–7 April 2011. Reston, VA: AIAA.
