Crash analysis and modeling of two vehicles in frontal collisions using two types of smart front-end structures: an analytical approach using IHBM
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract The aim of this paper is to investigate and to enhance crashworthiness of vehicle-to-vehicle full and offset frontal collisions using two smart front-end structures. Two different types of smart front-end structures, fixed and extendable, have been proposed to support the function of the existing vehicle. The work carried out in this paper includes developing and analyzing mathematical models of vehicle-to-vehicle in full and offset frontal collision events for the two types of smart front-end structures. In this paper, the dynamic responses of the crash events are obtained with the aid of an analytical approach using Incremental Harmonic Balance Method (IHBM). Moreover, the intrusion injury and occupant deceleration are used for interpreting the results. It is demonstrated from simulation results that significant improvements to both intrusion and deceleration injuries are obtained using the smart front-end structures. Furthermore, it is shown that the mathematical models are convenient and can be used in an effective way to give a quick insight of crash accidents. Key words: Crashworthinessfull and offset frontal impactsmart front-end structuresanalytical analysis
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it