Computer modeling and simulation are the cornerstones of product design and development in the automotive industry. Computer-aided engineering tools have improved to the extent that virtual testing may lead to significant reduction in prototype building and testing of vehicle designs. In order to make this a reality, we need to assess our confidence in the predictive capabilities of simulation models. As a first step in this direction, this paper deals with developing measures and a metric to compare time histories obtained from simulation model outputs and experimental tests. The focus of the work is on vehicle safety applications. We restrict attention to quantifying discrepancy between time histories as the latter constitute the predominant form of responses of interest in vehicle safety considerations. First, we evaluate popular measures used to quantify discrepancy between time histories in fields such as statistics, computational mechanics, signal processing, and data mining. Three independent error measures are proposed for vehicle safety applications, associated with three physically meaningful characteristics (phase, magnitude, and slope), which utilize norms, cross-correlation measures, and algorithms such as dynamic time warping to quantify discrepancies. A combined use of these three measures can serve as a metric that encapsulates the important aspects of time history comparison. It is also shown how these measures can be used in conjunction with ratings from subject matter experts to build regression-based validation metrics.

1.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
, 1998, Guide for the Verification and Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations.
2.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
, 2003, Council on Codes and Standards, Board of Performance Test Codes: Committee on Verification and Validation in Computational Solid Mechanics.
3.
Oberkampf
,
W. L.
, and
Barone
,
M. F.
, 2006, “
Measures of Agreement Between Computation and Experiment: Validation Metrics
,”
J. Comput. Phys.
0021-9991,
217
(
1
), pp.
5
36
.
4.
Rebba
,
R.
, and
Mahadevan
,
S.
, 2006, “
Model Predictive Capability Assessment Under Uncertainty
,”
AIAA J.
0001-1452,
44
, pp.
2376
2384
.
5.
Liu
,
X.
,
Yan
,
F.
,
Chen
,
W.
, and
Paas
,
M.
, 2005, “
Automated Occupant Model Evaluation and Correlation
,”
Proceedings of the 2005 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition
, Orlando, FL.
6.
Gu
,
L.
, and
Yang
,
R. J.
, 2004, “
CAE Model Validation in Vehicle Safety Design
,”
SAE Technical Paper Series
, Paper No. 20054-01-0455.
7.
2007, ADVISER Reference Guide, 2.5 ed.
8.
Jacob
,
C.
,
Charras
,
F.
,
Trosseille
,
X.
,
Hamon
,
J.
,
Pajon
,
M.
, and
Lecoz
,
J. Y.
, 2000, “
Mathematical Models Integral Rating
,”
Int. J. Crashworthiness
1358-8265,
5
(
4
), pp.
417
432
.
9.
Geers
,
T. L.
, 1984, “
Objective Error Measure for the Comparison of Calculated and Measured Transient Response Histories
,”
Shock and Vibration Bulletin
0002-7820,
54
, pp.
99
107
.
10.
Sprague
,
M. A.
, and
Geers
,
T. L.
, 2004, “
A Spectral-Element Method for Modelling Cavitation in Transient Fluid-Structure Interaction
,”
Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng.
0029-5981,
60
(
15
), pp.
2467
2499
.
11.
Schwer
,
L. E.
, 2005, “
Validation Metrics for Response Histories: A Review With Case Studies
,” Schwer Engineering & Consulting Service Technical Report.
12.
Russell
,
D. M.
, 1997, “
Error Measures for Comparing Transient Data: Part I, Development of a Comprehensive Error Measure
,”
Proceedings of the 68th Shock and Vibration Symposium
, Hunt Valley, MD.
13.
Russell
,
D. M.
, 1997, “
Error Measures for Comparing Transient Data: Part II, Error Measures Case Study
,”
Proceedings of the 68th Shock and Vibration Symposium
, Hunt Valley, MD.
14.
Donnelly
,
B. R.
,
Morgan
,
R. M.
, and
Eppinger
,
R. H.
, 1983, “
Durability, Repeatability, and Reproducibility of the NHTSA Side Impact Dummy
,”
27th Stapp Car Crash Conference
.
15.
Rabiner
,
L. R.
, and
Huang
,
B. H.
, 1993,
Fundamentals of Speech Recognition
,
Prentice-Hall
,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ
.
16.
Munich
,
M.
, and
Perona
,
P.
, 2003, “
Visual Identification by Signature Tracking
,”
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.
0162-8828,
25
(
2
), pp.
200
217
.
17.
Oates
,
T.
,
Firoiu
,
L.
, and
Cohen
,
P.
, 2000,
Using Dynamic Time Warping to Bootstrap HMM-Based Clustering of Time Series
,
Springer-Verlag
,
Berlin
, pp.
35
52
.
18.
Faundez-Zanuy
,
M.
, 2007, “
On-Line Signature Recognition Based on VQ-DTW
,”
Pattern Recogn.
0031-3203,
40
, pp.
981
992
.
19.
Arkin
,
E. M.
,
Chew
,
L. P.
,
Huttenlocher
,
D. P.
,
Kedem
,
K.
, and
Mitchell
,
J. S. B.
, 1991, “
An Efficiently Computable Metric for Comparing Polygonal Shapes
,”
IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell.
0162-8828,
13
(
3
), pp.
209
216
.
20.
Efrat
,
A.
,
Fan
,
Q.
, and
Venkatasubramanian
,
S.
, 2007, “
Curve Matching, Time Warping, and Light Fields: New Algorithms for Computing Similarity Between Curves
,”
J. Math. Imaging Vision
0924-9907,
27
(
3
), pp.
203
216
.
21.
Chan
,
F.
,
Fu
,
A.
, and
Yu
,
C.
, 2003, “
Haar Wavelets for Efficient Similarity Search of Time-Series: With and Without Time Warping
,”
IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.
1041-4347,
15
(
3
) pp.
686
705
,
22.
Chang
,
Y.
, and
Seong
,
P.
, 2002, “
A Signal Pattern Matching and Verification Method Using Interval Means Cross Correlation and Eigenvalues in the Nuclear Power Plant Monitoring Systems
,”
Ann. Nucl. Energy
0306-4549,
29
, pp.
1795
1807
.
23.
Sarin
,
H.
, 2008, “
Error Assessment of Response Time Histories (EARTH): A Metric to Validate Simulation Models
,” MS thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
24.
Yang
,
R. J.
,
Li
,
G.
, and
Fu
,
Y.
, 2007, “
Development of Validation Metrics for Vehicle Frontal Impact Simulation
,”
Proceedings of the ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
, Las Vegas, NV.
You do not currently have access to this content.