This content is not included in your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
Inflatable Restraint System Design Optimization Approaches
ISSN: 0148-7191, e-ISSN: 2688-3627
Published April 16, 2007 by SAE International in United States
Annotation ability available
Before numerical design and simulation tools arrived in the automotive industry, occupant restraint systems were devised based on an empirical approach. Optimization through iterative hardware design and prototyping was time consuming. As soon as design and simulation tools like AutoCAD, SOLIDWORKS, CATIA, IDEAS, UNIGRAPHICS, etc. arrived on the market, the average design cycle time reduced drastically. Nowadays, four major approaches can be identified. (1) Companies that can barely afford investments in expensive modeling tools still rely on making hardware prototypes, with limited usage of numerical analysis tools, e.g. on component level for strength analysis. (2) Then there are also companies that prefer to carry out initial validation of baseline models with testing, followed by iterative optimization through CAE models, starting from baseline performance to optimized design, with a validation of the last iteration only as a final check. (3) Some other companies may choose to study each design iteration with hardware prototypes as well as with numerical modeling. This would allow to take manufacturability into consideration at all times, while being able to study typical output unique to modeling like geometrical packaging studies and local stress concentrations inside the model. (4) And lastly, some of the companies design fully through simulation. All four approaches are still employed in the inflatable restraint system design arena. This paper presents cases of the mentioned approaches with corresponding advantages and disadvantages in the described application examples.
CitationSlaats, P., Lee, E., and de Castro, I., "Inflatable Restraint System Design Optimization Approaches," SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-0354, 2007, https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-0354.
- Bennett, J.A. Park, G.J. “Automotive Occupant Dynamics Optimization,” Shock and Vibration 2 6 471 479 1995
- Etman, L.F.P Adriaens, J.M.T.A. van Slagmaat, M.T.P. Schoofs, A.J.G. “Crashworthiness Design Optimization using Multipoint Sequential Linear Programming,” Structural Optimization 12 222 228 Nov 1 1996
- Kok, S. Stander, N. “Optimization of a sheet metal forming process using Successive Multipoint Approximations” Structural Optimization 18 4 277 295 December 1999
- Craig, K.J. Stander, N. Balasubramanyam, S. “Worst-Case Design in Head Impact Crashworthiness Optimization,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 57 6 795 817 June 14 2003
- modeFRONTIER ™ , Version 3.2.0 www.esteco.com June 27 2006
- i-SIGHT ™ , Version 9.0 www.engineous.com October 2004
- Optimus ™ www.noesissolutions.com ™ www.lmsintl.com September 2005
- HyperStudy ™ Release 7.0, Altair ® HyperWorks ® , Release 7.0 www.altair.com 2004
- MADYMO/Optimizer ™ , Utilities Manual August 2006