Browse Prior Art Database

Common Restraint System Design Method and Strategy Using Advanced Optimization Technology Disclosure Number: IPCOM000236476D
Publication Date: 2014-Apr-29
Document File: 3 page(s) / 75K

Publishing Venue

The Prior Art Database

This text was extracted from a PDF file.
This is the abbreviated version, containing approximately 54% of the total text.

Page 01 of 3

Common Restraint System Design Using Advanced Optimization Algorithm

In order to meet consumer demands, automotive companies usually provide a complete set of fleet to market, such as subcompact, compact, midsize, full size, SUV and pickup truck. Traditionally, each vehicle program has to develop its own restraint system in order to meet all safety requirements. Using a unique restraint system for each vehicle will make product development cost ineffective and time consuming. If one or a few common restraint systems can be shared by multiple vehicle programs, the development time can be reduced and the supply management can be more efficient. The common restraint system goal cannot be achieved by the traditional trial and error method or a single program design optimization approach.

An advanced optimization framework to identify common restraint systems for vehicle development is proposed here. The proposed framework can be used to identify common restraint systems to meet or exceed more stringent safety requirements vehicles with different front end structures and interior packages.


The schematic flow chart of this framework is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Common Restraint System Optimization Work Flow

Page 1


Page 02 of 3

Vehicle frontal structure data are collected which represent the characteristics of front end structures. Four types of front end structures are identified based on the assessment of the fleet with 35 mph full frontal impact. Vehicle Structure 1 (VS1) represents the softest structure, and Vehicle Structure 4 (VS4) represents the stiffest structure.

Similarly, critical interior package dimensions are evaluated. Three representative interior packages are selected, based on vehicle interior dimensions, ranging from a larger Interior Package 1 (e.g. pickup truck) to a smaller Interior Package 3 (e.g. sports car).

Four full frontal impact modes are selected for MADYMO1 simulation to evaluate occupant injury responses for NHTSA2 NCAP3 and FMVSS4 208. Four MADYMO models are developed for each combination of the vehicle front end structures and interior packages. They are 5th and 50th percentiles of unbelted dummies at 25 mph speed, and 5th and 50th percentiles of belted dummies at 35 mph speed.

Seven restraint contents are selected as des...