Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Ishit Amin

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 1-2: Overview of current ADAS sensors (Vipin Kumar Kukkala, 2018)

Figure 1 -2: Overview of current ADAS sensors (Vipin Kumar Kukkala, 2018)

Related Figures (44)

on FEM modeling, the Kelvin and Maxwell models, and data-based modeling is provided
on FEM modeling, the Kelvin and Maxwell models, and data-based modeling is provided
Figure 2-1: (a) Kelvin Model (Pawlus, 2011), (b) mass-spring-damper model (Pawlus, 2011) In addition to the Kelvin model, the Maxwell model is also a popular lumped
Figure 2-1: (a) Kelvin Model (Pawlus, 2011), (b) mass-spring-damper model (Pawlus, 2011) In addition to the Kelvin model, the Maxwell model is also a popular lumped
Figure 2-2: Maxwell model - m' designates zero-mass (H. R. K. Witold Pawlus, Kjell G. Robbersmyr, 2010)
Figure 2-2: Maxwell model - m' designates zero-mass (H. R. K. Witold Pawlus, Kjell G. Robbersmyr, 2010)
Figure 2-3: Multibody Model (H. R. K. Witold Pawlus, and Kjell G. Robbersmyr, 2013)
Figure 2-3: Multibody Model (H. R. K. Witold Pawlus, and Kjell G. Robbersmyr, 2013)
Figure 2-4: Car's Kinematics (H. R. K. Witold Pawlus, and Kjell G. Robbersmyr, 2013) 2-4 from the work of Pawlus et al. In figure 2-4, the blue curve denotes the acceleration
Figure 2-4: Car's Kinematics (H. R. K. Witold Pawlus, and Kjell G. Robbersmyr, 2013) 2-4 from the work of Pawlus et al. In figure 2-4, the blue curve denotes the acceleration
impact. Due to the possibility of predicting multiple impact sides, PDOF is only used for side impacts as there is minimal parking sensor coverage on the side. Kusano and Gabler
impact. Due to the possibility of predicting multiple impact sides, PDOF is only used for side impacts as there is minimal parking sensor coverage on the side. Kusano and Gabler
Figure 3-1: High Level Algorithm Flowchart Characteristics for the data used for analysis are shown below in table 3-1. To analyse the
Figure 3-1: High Level Algorithm Flowchart Characteristics for the data used for analysis are shown below in table 3-1. To analyse the
lateral or longitudinal. side is determined, the crush can be determined using the correct accelerations signal, either
lateral or longitudinal. side is determined, the crush can be determined using the correct accelerations signal, either
3. The reason this is done is to align better with the testing data used, which is described in
3. The reason this is done is to align better with the testing data used, which is described in
Figure 3-4: Flowchart to Determine Impact Side described below.
Figure 3-4: Flowchart to Determine Impact Side described below.
the closest impact zones (discussed in section 3.3.1).
the closest impact zones (discussed in section 3.3.1).
Figure 3-10: Flowchart to determine side impact zones side cannot be determined, then section 3.3.5 applies and table 3-3 is used to obtain impact
Figure 3-10: Flowchart to determine side impact zones side cannot be determined, then section 3.3.5 applies and table 3-3 is used to obtain impact
zone the coordinates are in. The coordinates inches for a 2016 Ford Fusion Energi are given
zone the coordinates are in. The coordinates inches for a 2016 Ford Fusion Energi are given
Table 3-4: Crush for parts in different impact zones
Table 3-4: Crush for parts in different impact zones
Figure 3-11: Flowchart to determine parts damaged threshold is met, then the part is damaged, and the process repeats until there are no more
Figure 3-11: Flowchart to determine parts damaged threshold is met, then the part is damaged, and the process repeats until there are no more
3.5 Obtaining Testing Data
3.5 Obtaining Testing Data
From table 4-1, the average error for all vehicle types is -12.1%, however, more impacts with a pole.
From table 4-1, the average error for all vehicle types is -12.1%, however, more impacts with a pole.
is predicted as a full impact at 30 [kph]. This error is due to the sensor geometry on the tests 23 & 30, the final determination of damaged parts will not be affected by this offset
is predicted as a full impact at 30 [kph]. This error is due to the sensor geometry on the tests 23 & 30, the final determination of damaged parts will not be affected by this offset
Figure 4-2: Front center impact comparison - 25 [kph] & 26 [kph]
Figure 4-2: Front center impact comparison - 25 [kph] & 26 [kph]
Table 4-9: Effect of impact zone prediction errors on determination of damaged parts
Table 4-9: Effect of impact zone prediction errors on determination of damaged parts
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved