Struct Multidisc Optim (2005) 29: 232–243
DOI 10.1007/s00158-004-0487-8
INDUSTRIAL APPLICATIONS
J. Forsberg · L. Nilsson
On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural
optimization of crashworthiness
Received: 19 March 2004 / Revised manuscript received: 2 August 2004 / Published online: 26 October 2004
 Springer-Verlag 2005
Abstract The accuracy of different approximating response
surfaces is investigated. In the classical response surface
methodology (CRSM) the true response function is usually
replaced with a low-order polynomial. In Kriging the true re-
sponse function is replaced with a low-order polynomial and
an error correcting function. In this paper the error part of
the approximating response surface is obtained from “sim-
ple point Kriging” theory. The combined polynomial and
error correcting function will be addressed as a Kriging sur-
face approximation.
To be able to use Kriging the spatial correlation or co-
variance must be known. In this paper the error is assumed
to have a normal distribution and the covariance to depend
only on one parameter. The maximum-likelihood method is
used to find the latter parameter. A weighted least-square
procedure is used to determine the trend before simple point
Kriging is used for the error function. In CRSM the sur-
face approximation is determined through an ordinary least-
square fit. In both cases the D-optimality criterion has been
used to distribute the design points.
From this investigation we have found that a low-ordered
polynomial assumption should be made with the Kriging
approach. We have also concluded that Kriging better than
CRSM resolves abrupt changes in the response, e.g. due to
buckling, contact or plastic deformation.
Keywords Crashworthiness · FEM · Kriging RSM
1 Introduction
Until recently, crashworthiness design of vehicles has been
based on experience combined with trial and error. Even
though FE simulations have been used regularly since the
early 1990s, these simulations have mainly been used in
a similar way as physical tests. Only a few attempts have
J. Forsberg (B) · L. Nilsson
Division of Solid Mechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Linköping University, SE-58183 Linköping, Sweden
E-mail: jimfo@ikp.liu.se
been made to use optimization methods in crashworthiness
design, e.g. Etman et al. (1996), Etman (1997), Schramm
and Thomas (1998), Yamazaki and Han (1998), Marklund
(1999), Sobieszczanski-Sobieski et al. (2000), Schramm
(2001), Yang et al. (2001a) and Redhe et al. (2003).
The first task in any development process using opti-
mization of an FE model is to determine/select design pa-
rameters which can be altered. The FE model is subjected
to loading and the solution will generate values of different
responses of interest to the designer. Hopefully, the inter-
actions between the design variables and the responses are
understood and a better design can be created. A more effi-
cient approach would be to formulate the development of the
design as a mathematical optimization problem.
Traditionally, the design process has been governed by
trial and error tests of new concepts. Today finite-element-
based (FE-based) simulation techniques have replaced much
of the physical testing in the development of a new design.
These techniques have meant a major advance in crashwor-
thiness design. The first FE analysis which used shell elem-
ents and explicit time integration of a vehicle collision was
carried out by Belytschko et al. (1975). The first complete
vehicle crash analyses were done at Suzuki in 1984–1985 by
Benson and Hallquist (1986) and in 1986 at Peugeot by du
Bois et al. (1986).
The FE simulation of a car crash is a demanding problem
which requires the solution of a large number of degrees of
freedom and consequently extensive computing time. It also
includes several nonlinear phenomena such as contact, plas-
tic deformations and so forth. The responses from a car crash
are generally “noisy”, i.e. they contain both physical and nu-
merical high-frequency components. Due to the computing
efforts the number of functional evaluations is often limited,
which in fact limits the choice of a suitable optimization pro-
cedure.
Classical response surface methodology (CRSM) is
a methodology which has been used in the optimization
of crashworthiness design. Classical RSM is ideally suited
for solving problems with noisy responses where gradient-
based algorithms would end up in a nearby local optimum.
Traditionally, CRSM consists of a low-order polynomial as-
On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness
sumption of the response to be approximated and the error is
assumed to be random.
Kriging is a methodology which was developed in geo-
statistics for the estimation of the distribution of minerals
resources in a rock massive etc. Kriging is based on dis-
tributed simple point measurements. In this paper, simple
point Kriging is used as a means to correct the discrepancy
between the true response and its intermediate approxima-
tion. Hence, the final surface approximation will render the
same value as the true response at a design point. The Krig-
ing theory is thoroughly given in Stein (1999) and Olea
(1999). In a paper by Rijpkema et al. (2000), Kriging was
compared to CRSM using numerical test functions.
Some comparative studies of different response surface
approximation techniques have been performed earlier, cf.
Giunta et al. (1998), Gu (2001), Jin et al. (2001), Simpson et
al. (1998) and Yang et al. (2001b). The main difference be-
tween this paper and these comparative studies is our main
application to crashworthiness design problem and/or the
different approximation techniques used.
2 Theory
The optimization problem to be solved is formulated as,
min f(x)

errors and random errors. The equation for a general poly-
gi (x) ≤ 0
s.t. (1)
xmin ≤ x ≤ xmax
where x is the vector of design parameters, f(x) is the ob-
jective and gi are the constraints. The analytical expression
for these functions are seldom known, and hence approxima-
tions are made. The design domain is the space spanned by
the design variables, i.e. {x1 , x2 , . . . , xi }. The design domain
can be further narrowed by introducing limits on the design
variables separate from the global limits. This creates a sub-
domain called the region of interest, see Fig. 1, where the
approximations are valid. In order to construct this approxi-
mation, the functions need to be evaluated in selected points
Fig. 1 Example of the design domain and the region of interest (two
design variables x1 , x2 )
233
of the region of interest. When the optimum is found the re-
gion of interest is moved in the indicated direction during
the next iteration of the optimization process, see Stander
(1999) for an automatic panning and zooming scheme.
2.1 Theory of CRSM
CRSM is a method for constructing global approximations
of the objective and constraint functions based on functional
evaluations at various points in the design domain. The stre-
ngth of the method is in applications where gradient-based
methods fails, i.e. when design sensitivities are difficult or
impossible to evaluate. However, if the response dramat-
ically changes, e.g. due to an instability, it is difficult to
capture this discontinuity with CRSM.
The selection of approximation functions to represent the
real response surfaces is essential. These functions can be
polynomials of any order or the sum of different basis func-
tions, e.g. sine and cosine functions. For a general quadratic
polynomial surface approximation the function will be,
 
y i = β0 + β j xij + β jk xij xik + εi ,
j j k
i = 1, 2, . . . , N (2)
where βi are the constants to be determined, xi are the de-
sign points in the region of interest and εi includes both bias
nomial surface can be put in matrix form as,
Y = Xβ + ε . (3)
The distribution of experimental points is discussed
in Sect. 2.3.
2.2 Theory of simple point Kriging
A simple point Kriging method has been used on the residu-
als, which have been obtained using a weighted least-square
approach to determine the trend of the data. The expected
value, m, of the residuals used in simple point Kriging is
therefore assumed known and to be zero. The final surface
approximation is then found as the sum of the weighted
least-square surface approximation and the surface approx-
imation found with simple point Kriging.
The response surface in simple point Kriging theory is
considered as the realization of a random stochastic pro-
cess with a known expected value m of the response func-
tion. From this assumption the evaluated function becomes
a stochastic variable at each experimental point. The value of
the approximated surface at a position in the design domain,
x0 , is given through,

k 
k
ŷ(x0 ) = m + λi (y(xi ) − m) = m + λi e(xi ) , (4)
i=1 i=1
where xi represents experimental points in the design do-
main, y is the response function, which is assumed to be
234
a second-order stationary random process. The residual at
each evaluated design point is denoted ei . Thus the covari-
ance of the response functions should only depend on the
distance between two points in the design domain and it
should not be affected by a translation in the design domain.
The λi are the parameters describing how much the value of
the approximated surface is influenced by the residuals at the
design points. The random process will account for local de-
viations in the global regression assumption, which in this
case is a constant, m. The residuals, ei , have a zero mean
since m is the expected value of y(xi ) at position xi . Fur-
thermore, the residuals ei have a spatial covariance between
different positions in the design domain.
The prediction variance at an arbitrary point x0 is given
through the equation,
 
σ 2 (x0 ) = Var ŷ(x0 ) − y(x0)

k 
k
λi λ j Cov(e(xi ), e(x j )) , (5)
i=1 j=1
The optimal set of λi is evaluated as the minimum value of
σ 2 . If the covariance is positive definite, a unique solution
exists.
The constants λi are found by,
 
λ = Cov−1 e(xi ), e(x j ) Cov (e(x0 ), e(xi )) = C−1 c . (6)
The simple point Kriging surface approximation is given
by,
ŷ(x0 ) = m + ET λ = m + ET C−1 c , (7)
where E, C and c are the vector of residuals from the experi-
mental points, the covariance matrix of the residual at the
experimental positions and the covariance vector between
the residual value at the experimental points and the actual
position x0 , respectively.
So far, nothing has been explicitly stated about the dis-
tribution or density function of y(x). The two assumptions
made in simple Kriging are that the mean, m, is known and
that the covariance function is positive definite and only de-
pends on the distance between two positions in the design
domain.
2.2.1 Estimation of the distribution parameters
In the Kriging theory the spatial covariance, C, between lo-
cations in the design domain is assumed to be known. This is
rarely the case in practice and, therefore, some assumptions
about the error density function, i.e. its spatial distribution
and correlation are needed. The distribution will depend on
parameters which have to be estimated from the same func-
tional evaluations as defined in the design of experiment.
Several methods exist but the one used in this work is the
maximum likelihood (ML)method , see Stein (1999). The
assumption that the stochastic process has a normal distri-
bution is necessary for the following equations to be valid.
The likelihood function is the joint density function of all ex-
perimental points used, viewed as a function of the unknown
J. Forsberg, L. Nilsson
parameters. A normal density function for one stochastic
variable is,
2
1 − (y−m)
f(y) = √ e 2σ 2 , (8)
2πσ
where y is the actual value of the stochastic variable, f(y)
is the probability of this value, m is the expected value and
σ is the standard deviation of the variable. If there was no
correlation between the different observations, e.g. like in
CRSM, the joint density function is the product of the dens-
ity function of each observation. In this case, however, the
observations or functional evaluations at different experi-
mental points in the design domain have a correlation and
the joint density function can be written,
 N
1
e(Y−Xβ) C(Y−Xβ) .
T
L= √ (9)
2π|C|
In Kriging the covariance matrix, C, may depend on
several unknown parameters, θi . In this study only one, θ,
has been used. But any set of parameters which maximizes
this function is called an ML estimate. It is equivalent to
maximize the logarithm of the ML function. The log(ML)
function may be written,
N 1
l(θ, β) = − log(2π) − log (|C(θ)|)
2 2
1
− (Y − Xβ)C(θ)−1 (Y − Xβ) , (10)
2
where C(θ), the covariance matrix of Y, is assumed to be
positive definite. Clearly, the log(ML) function depends both
on the unknown parameters as well as the unknown con-
stants, since the unknown constants, β, depend on θ. There-
fore, no closed expression exists for the optimized ML func-
tion.
2.2.2 Weighted least-square procedure
In the previous section it was stated that a surface approx-
imation can be carried out using a weighted least-square
(WLS) procedure. The reason for using a WLS method can
be observed from the covariance matrix, C. For a detailed
description of WLS, see Draper and Smith (1966). In CRSM
the errors were assumed to have a normal distribution, to be
independent and to have a constant variance σ 2 . This yields
a diagonal covariance matrix, C, between the errors of the
different experimental points. In such a case the least-square
procedure is valid and this is utilized in CRSM.
However, in the case when there is a general correlation
it is possible to find a weighting matrix, W, which will make
the least-square procedure valid. If we pre-multiply (3) with
the above matrix W, we obtain,
WY = WXβ + Wε ⇒ Y∗ = X∗ β + ε∗ . (11)
The variance of ε∗ is a matrix with identical diagonal elem-
ents and the usual least-square procedure may be used to
estimate the constants β,
On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness
−1
−1
b = X∗T X∗ X∗T Y∗ = XT WT WX XT WT WY ,
(12)
where WT W is the inverse of the original covariance matrix.
If the covariance matrix has non-zero, off-diagonal elem-
ents there is a dependency between the functional values at
the different locations. But the same procedure of finding
a suitable matrix to pre-multiply (3) will still hold. The final
result will be identical to the above.
2.3 Design of experiment, D-optimal design
The objective with design of experiment (DOE) is to ex-
tract as much information about the response functions at
hand with as few functional evaluations as possible. There
are quite a few different schemes proposed in the literature,
e.g. Koshal design, factorial design etc.
Generally ε in (3) contains both bias errors and random
errors. If the bias errors are neglected the following deriva-
tion is valid,
235
the error of the surface approximation. It should be em-
phasized that the size of the region of interest has a major
influence on the quality of the surface approximation, es-
pecially when using CRSM or/and few function evaluations
for the construction. An estimate of the error in the surface
approximation is obtained by evaluating the difference be-
tween the approximating surface and the functional values
at new experimental points at different location in the re-
gion of interest. These new locations are only used as check
points and, therefore, the corresponding function values are
not used in the surface approximations. The values from the
check points are used as reference values, yi in (14)–(15).
When defining an error estimate, the residual will always
have a prominent role,
ei = yi − ŷi . (14)
where yi and ŷi are the real response and the approximating
response, respectively. One error measure utilizing the re-
sidual is the root mean squared (RMS) error. The RMS error
is defined as,
 
−1
T
Var[ ŷ] = Var x(m) b = x(m) XT X
T
x(m) σ 2 .

(13) 
1  Z

For derivation of experimental designs which minimize the εRMS =  e2i , (15)
Z
bias error, see Venter and Haftka (1997). From (13), it can i=1
be observed that the predictive variance will depend both on where Z is equal to the number of check points in (14)–(15).
the location x(m) in the region of interest as well as on the lo-
cation of the function evaluations through (XT X)−1 . There
are several different methods on how to place the functional
evaluations in the region of interest in order to influence 3 Two simple application problems
this property in different ways, see Myers and Montgomery In this study three different problems have been investigated.
(1995) for further details. The D-optimality criterion, which A square beam impacting a rigid wall, a front rail impacting
belongs to the class of so-called alphabetic optimality crite- a rigid wall and a symmetry model of a frontal car structure
ria, is chosen here. impacting a rigid wall. In this section the first two applica-
In this paper a genetic algorithm, which is included in tion problems will be discussed.
the optimization package LS-OPT, is used to produce the D-
optimal DOE. For further information on the D-optimality
criterion and the genetic algorithm in LS-OPT, see Myers 3.1 Square beam application problem
and Montgomery (1995) and Stander (1999), respectively.
The use of the D-optimality criterion is closely related to The square tube model was chosen due to its simplicity in
the factorial design, since the factorial design is used to set parametric representation and its robustness in behaviour.
up a number of candidate design points to choose from. No- A parameterized model is needed such that the design vari-
tice that the D-optimality criterion allows the user to define
the number of functional evaluations that should be used.
The D-optimality criterion will then define the design points
in the region of interest.
The D-optimality criterion has been used for experimen-
tal design during the construction of approximating response
surfaces both with the CRSM and the Kriging technique. As
can be seen from the derivation of the D-optimality criterion,
it is not valid for the approximation using the Kriging tech-
nique. Further investigation may reveal that another DOE is
better suited for Kriging, such as space-filling designs or the
Latin hypercube.

2.4 Error measures

When a surface approximation is created, the quality of Fig. 2 Geometry and material properties of the square tube. W1,2 and
the surface has to be evaluated. This is done by estimating t are the design variables
236 J. Forsberg, L. Nilsson

Fig. 4 Geometry and material properties of the front rail. Wtop and
Wbot are the design variables

Fig. 3 Square tube deformation at different time states
and the rail impacts into a rigid stonewall with an initial vel-
ocity 9.5 m/s.
This FE model consists of 3168 Belytschko–Whong–
Chang elements. The CPU time needed for a solution is
between four and six hours depending on the geometry of
the front rail. Typical deformation behavior at four different
time states can be seen in Fig. 5.

ables can be changed automatically. A description of the

geometry and material data of the tube is given in Fig. 2.
The FE model is parametrically set up in the preprocess
program LS-INGRID, see Hallquist (1998a), and the simu-
lation is carried out within the FE program LS-DYNA, see
Hallquist (1999). The model consists of 5625 Belytschko–
Whong–Chang elements, see Hallquist (1998b). The CPU
time for solving the problem varies between four and six
hours on a DEC Alpha Server 4000 5/400 depending on the
geometry of the square tube. Typical deformation behavior
at four different time states can be seen in Fig. 3.

3.2 Front rail application problem

The square beam application problem has a symmetric
geometry and the deformation behavior is rather simple.
A front rail model was developed to make sure that the re-
sult is also valid for a nonsymmetric geometry with a more
complex deformation.
Saab Automobile provided us with geometry and mate-
rial data of a typical car front rail. To be able to change the
geometry automatically this model was parameterized in the
preprocess program LS-INGRID. The solution was carried
out in the FE program LS-DYNA on a DEC Alpha Server
4000 5/400.
The geometry and material data are given in Fig. 4. The
front rail is 1.195 m long and it has 25 different geometry
parameters which can be varied independently. In this study
the widths of the top and bottom plates were chosen as de-
sign variables. A mass of 200 kg is attached to the rear end Fig. 5 Deformation of front rail at different time states
On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness 237

3.3 Investigated properties of the square beam and front rail

application problems

Responses from the FE simulations are used to set up the ap-

proximating response surfaces. Typical responses of interest
in crashworthiness are deformations, velocities, accelera-
tions, intrusions, section forces, rigid wall forces, absorbed
energy etc.
In this study the maximum rigid wall force, the appear-
ance of a section force in time-space and the maximum
internal energy in the rail are used as alternative objective
functions. A typical curve of the rigid wall force is shown
in Fig. 6, where the maximum value is 16.8 kN. The section
force time-space is a measure of the time the structure can
carry a certain load amplitude. Figure 7 shows a typical ex-
ample of a section force for the square tube. The time-space
is the elapsed time between the event when the section force Fig. 8 Time history of internal energy
for the first time reaches e.g. 10 kN and the first event when
this load level is lost. The elapsed time in Fig. 7 is calculated
as approximately 8.5 ms. Finally the maximal internal en- The results from the section force and rigid wall force are
ergy of the structure is calculated, where Fig. 8 gives a value all filtered, using a 300 Hz SAE filter, to smooth the curve.
of 8.4 kJ.
3.4 Working procedure
The main objective of this paper is to compare CRSM and
Kriging response surface approximations used in crashwor-
thiness analysis. The error of the surface approximations
will depend on how many functional evaluations are used
in order to construct the approximation. Therefore, a second
objective could be formulated: to compare the number of
functional evaluations needed to construct surface approxi-
mations of similar quality using CRSM and Kriging.
For these two application problems two design vari-
ables are selected. 25 functional evaluations were performed
in the design domain according a 25 factorial experimen-
tal design. Surface approximations were then created using
Nmin , Nmin + 1, . . . , 25 functional evaluations. Each sub-
set of the functional evaluations was selected according to
the D-optimality criterion. Next, eight additional functional
Fig. 6 Time history of rigid wall force, using an SAE 300 Hz filter

Fig. 9 Evaluation points in the design domain, both the evaluations

used for response surface approximation construction and the eight
Fig. 7 Time history of section force, using an SAE 300 Hz filter additional control evaluations
238
evaluations were performed at new, heuristically selected
from a 27 factorial design, locations in the design domain,
see Fig. 9. These eight functional evaluations were used to
investigate the accuracy of each surface approximation.
3.5 Results from the square beam and front rail application
problems
The results are presented as graphs of the RMS error, see
(15), of the surface approximation versus the number of
functional evaluations used to construct the surface approx-
imation. The graphs of all possible combinations are not
shown for obvious reasons.
The weighted least-square (WLS) procedure has some
impact on the estimation of the polynomial constants of the
Fig. 10 The effect of the weighted least-square on the RMS error vs.
number of experimental points for the front rail, maximum rigid wall
force, quadratic approximation. The identical values of the RMS error
values indicate a large value of θ
Fig. 11 The erroneous effect of the weighted least-square on the RMS
error vs. number of experimental points for the square tube, maximum
rigid wall force, linear approximation
J. Forsberg, L. Nilsson
response surface approximation, i.e. at least when a low-
order polynomial is assumed. When utilizing quadratic sur-
face approximations the effect of weighting is not as clear.
The reason for this is that the ML estimate of the distribu-
tion parameter θ is often set to the limit value of 2. This
reduces the effect of the weighting procedure, see Fig. 10.
Surface approximations with a low number of experimental
points have identical RMS error values. In all of these ap-
proximations the distribution parameter θ has been set to the
maximum limiting value. For surface approximations con-
structed with a larger number of experimental points the ML
estimate of θ is within the limiting values.
The WLS procedure may also result in less accurate
surface approximations for some number of experimental
points in the design domain, see Fig. 11. In this figure the
Fig. 12 The elimination of the erroneous effect of the weighted least-
square on the RMS error vs. number of experimental points for the
square tube, maximum rigid wall force, linear approximation, when
Kriging of the residuals are added
Fig. 13 RMS error vs. number of experimental points, square tube
model, internal energy, constant approximation. Function value at cen-
ter of design domain is 2.8 MNmm
On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness
surface approximations with 11 and 12 experimental points
result in much less accurate surfaces. The errors are greatly
reduced when the Kriging term is added to the response,
see Fig. 12. In this work the WLS procedure has always been
used together with the Kriging approximation.
Some of the typical results are shown in Figs. 13 and 14
for the square tube problem and in Figs. 15 and 16 for the
front rail problem.
As can be seen in Figs. 13 to 16, the Kriging approxi-
mation results in improved surface approximations for most
of the cases. For the square tube problem with quadratic
polynomial assumption, Kriging turns out to produce a less
accurate surface, see Fig. 17. This behavior is typical for
all of the quadratic surface approximations of the responses
used for the square tube problem.
Fig. 14 RMS error vs. number of experimental points, square tube
model, section force time-space, linear approximation. Function value
at center of design domain is 9.6 ms
Fig. 15 RMS error vs. number of experimental points, front rail
model, section force time-space, elliptic approximation. Function
value at center of design domain is 21 ms
239
It is interesting to compare the quality of the surface ap-
proximations when CRSM and Kriging are used with a dif-
ferent assumption on the order of the polynomial. In Fig. 19
a linear polynomial is used for CRSM while a constant poly-
nomial is used as a basis in Kriging. The accuracy of the
Kriging surface is higher than the accuracy achieved with
CRSM if more than five experimental points are used. This
observation also holds for many of the responses of the front
rail problem. For the square tube problem the same argu-
ment holds comparing a constant surface basis assumption
in Kriging with a linear surface for CRSM. The number
of experimental points for “break-even” increases for the
square tube problem up to ten experimental points. The sur-
face approximations created by CRSM and Kriging for one
response are given in Fig. 18.
Fig. 16 RMS error vs. number of experimental points, front rail
model, rigid wall force, quadratic approximation. Function value at
center of design domain is 95 kN
Fig. 17 RMS error vs. number of experimental points, square tube
model, rigid wall force, quadratic approximation. Function value at
center of design domain is 2.6 kN
240
Fig. 18 Two surface approximations, front rail model, maximum in-
ternal energy, using linear approximation for CRSM (a) and a constant
basis for Kriging with ten functional evaluations for construction (b).
Results from the simulations are also shown in (c)
4 Symmetric frontal impact application problem
The application problem used in this investigation is a sym-
metric frontal impact model of a vehicle, see Fig. 20. This
model is given symmetry boundary conditions along the
center and it is fixed in the rear, i.e. in front of the B-pillar.
A rigid wall with mass 500 kg impacts the structure with an
J. Forsberg, L. Nilsson
Fig. 19 RMS error vs. number of experimental points, front rail
model, maximum internal energy, using linear approximation for
RSM and constant for Kriging
Fig. 20 Finite element sub-model with design parameters shown
initial velocity of 15.64 m/s. The engine parts are treated
as rigid while the beams are deformable and follow a linear
elastic, piece-wise linear plastic hardening material model.
The geometry model consists of 51,194 shell elements and
47 beam elements.
The frontal beams are important structural members due
to their major influence on the passive safety of the car.
Thus, the thickness of different parts of the frontal beam
have a major effect on the crashworthiness behaviour of
a car.
Five thicknesses of different parts in this model were se-
lected as design parameters, see Fig. 20. The thicknesses of
these parts were varied t0 ± 0.2 mm, where t0 is the original
thickness of each part.
4.1 Properties for the symmetric frontal impact application
In this application, five responses were selected. Three of
them were intrusions, Int1, Int2 and Int3, into the passen-
On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness 241

Fig. 21 The three intrusions into the passenger area

Fig. 23 The velocity of the rigid wall

tively. One of these responses is the maximum penetration of

the rigid wall into the engine area, (Pen), see Fig. 22, which
in this case is approximately 597 mm. The last studied re-
sponse is the time it takes to bring the vehicle to a full stop,
i.e. the time needed by the structure to bring the rigid wall to
zero velocity, (t2r), see Fig. 23.

4.2 Working procedure

In this application problem, five design variables were se-
lected and 33 functional evaluations were performed in the
design domain. All the functional evaluations were next
used to construct response surface approximations and the
accuracy of these approximations were investigated using
five new functional evaluations at different, heuristically se-
lected, locations in the design domain.

Fig. 22 The rigid wall displacement
ger space in the pedal area. Their typical appearances for one
functional evaluation are given in Fig. 21. In this case they
are found to be 56.3 mm, 49.1 mm and 40.3 mm, respec-
4.3 Results from the symmetric frontal impact problem
Concerning the symmetric frontal impact problem, all func-
tional evaluations are used to construct the surface approx-
imation. Hence, no graphs are presented, merely the RMS
error of the surface approximations.

Response Method Constant Linear Elliptic Quadratic

Int1 RSM 0.0067884 0.0090812 0.0064111 0.0075147

Kriging 0.0079387 0.0070636 0.0063932 0.0074947
Int2 RSM 0.0083965 0.0033265 0.0034498 0.0030650
Kriging 0.0030376 0.0028926 0.0033898 0.0029900
Int3 RSM 0.0085358 0.0088512 0.0049241 0.0059287
Kriging 0.0048922 0.0041799 0.0073165 0.0057546
Pen RSM 0.034155 0.032088 0.021984 0.019231
Table 1 The RMS error of
Kriging 0.022810 0.026457 0.019700 0.019157 check points utilizing CRSM
t2r RSM 0.0016523 0.0012238 0.00053343 0.00066198 and Kriging surface approxima-
Kriging 0.00066073 0.00083371 0.00052321 0.00066219 tions. Minimum errors shown in
bold face
242
The response surface approximations were built up by
both CRSM and Kriging, in the same sense as utilized in
the previous investigations. For both methods, the order of
the regression surface was varied between a constant and
a fully quadratic surface. For each surface approximation the
RMS error is calculated for the control experimental points,
see Table 1.
5 Conclusions
In almost all cases the Kriging approximation gave improved
results compared to the CRSM approximation. However,
the suspect results concerning the square tube problem and
quadratic surface assumption lead to the conclusion that it is
safer to use a low-order polynomial surface, i.e. a maximum of
linear or elliptic surface assumptions, when utilizing Kriging.
For many of the responses the accuracy of the surface ap-
proximation is even reduced when higher-order polynomial
surfaces are assumed in the Kriging approximation.
The number of experimental points used for constructing the
response surface approximation in Kriging could perhaps
be smaller than in CRSM. It is the authors’ opinion that it
is better to use at least as many experimental points as in
CRSM, which also results in a more accurate approxima-
tion. However, the minimum number of experimental points
for a constant surface assumption is one experimental point.
Since a constant surface approximation would not be con-
sidered in CRSM, the minimum number for a linear surface
assumption in CRSM could be comparable to a constant sur-
face assumption in Kriging.
By comparing the results from Kriging with a constant
surface assumption versus any other polynomial surface as-
sumption, it can be concluded that a higher-order surface
assumption gives good approximations if the number of ex-
perimental points is kept low. But if the design domain is too
oversampled, it is better to use a constant surface approxi-
mation.
The value of using the weighted least-square procedure
to determine the constants in the polynomial assumption in
Kriging may be questioned. Some investigations, without
the weighted least-square procedure, have been found in the
literature and utilizing CRSM for determination of the con-
stants should show similar results for the Kriging surface
approximation.
One of the major positive effects when using CRSM is
the filtering of the noisy response, such that only the ma-
jor tendencies of the responses are used in the optimization.
If instead a Kriging surface approximation is utilized there
is a possibility of selecting a very small design space and
oversampling the design domain. Hence, the errors which
are filtered in CRSM are incorporated in the Kriging model.
They may now represent some sort of noise in the solution.
This is more of an academic issue in a sequential approxi-
mation since such small design domains will be too costly.
However, the size of the design domain has a major effect on
the accuracy of the surface approximation.
As can be seen in Table 1, Kriging creates response sur-
face approximations with the highest accuracy. The results
J. Forsberg, L. Nilsson
for the responses Pen and t2r indicate that if a low number
of experimental points is used, the order of the surface as-
sumption strongly affects the accuracy both for CRSM and
Kriging.
By comparing the linear surface assumption in both
CRSM and Kriging, it is concluded that Kriging increases
the accuracy of the surface approximation. It can further be
noticed that even if a constant basis surface assumption is
made in Kriging its RMS error is lower than the error ob-
tained for the linear surface assumption in CRSM.
Acknowledgement This work has been founded by the Swedish
Foundation for Strategic Research, research programme IVS. Saab
Automobile AB has provided geometry and material data for the rail
and symmetric frontal impact application. We acknowledge Nielen
Stander (LSTC) for cooperation regarding the optimization package
LS-OPT.
References
Benson DJ, Hallquist JO (1986) The application of DYNA3D in
large scale crashworthiness calculations. 1986 ASME Interna-
tional computers in engineering conference, Chicago
Belytschko T, Welch RE, Bruce RW (1975) Finite element analysis of
automotive structures under crash loadings. Report DOT-HS-105-
3-697, IIT Research Institute, Chicago, pp37–46
du Bois P, Chedmail JF, Dagba B, Haug E, Picket AK, Winkel-
muller G (1986) Numerical techniques, experimental validation
and industrial applications of structural impact and crashworthi-
ness analysis with supercomputers for the automotive industries.
In: Supercomputer applications and automotive research and en-
gineering development. Computational Mechanics Publications,
Southampton
Draper NR, Smith H (1966) Applied regression analysis. Wiley, New
York
Etman LFP, Adriaens JMTA, van Slagmaat MTP, Schoofs AJG (1996)
Crashworthiness design optimization using multipoint sequential
linear programming. Struct Optim 12:222–228
Etman LFP (1997) Optimization of multibody systems using approx-
imations concepts. Technical University Eindhoven, Eindhoven
Giunta AA, Watson LT, Koehler J (1998) A comparison of approx-
imating modelling techniques: polynomial versus interpolating
models. Proc. 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symp. on multi-
disciplinary analysis & optimization, St Louis, pp392–404
Gu L (2001) A comparison of polynomial based regression models in
vehicle safety analysis. In: Proceedings of ASME design engin-
eering technical conferences, Pittsburgh, PA, September 2001
Hallquist JO (1998a) LS-INGRID user’s manual. Livermore Software
Technology Company, Livermore
Hallquist JO (1998b) LS-DYNA theoretical manual. Livermore Soft-
ware Technology Company, Livermore
Hallquist JO (1999) LS-DYNA user’s manual v. 950. Livermore Soft-
ware Technology Company, Livermore
Jansson T, Redhe M, Nilsson L (2003) Using surrogate models and
response surfaces in structural optimization – with application to
crashworthiness design and sheet metal forming. Struct Multidisc
Optim 25:129–140
Jin R, Chen W, Simpson TW (2001) Comparative studies of meta-
modelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Struct
Multidisc Optim 23
Koshal RS (1993) Application of the method of maximum likelihood
to the improvement of curve fitting by the method of moments.
J Roy Stat Soc A 96:303–313
Marklund PO, Nilsson L (2001) Optimization of a car body compon-
ent subjected to impact. Struct Multidisc Optim 21:383–392
Myers RH, Montgomery DC (1995) Response surface methodology.
Wiley, New York
On polynomial response surfaces and Kriging for use in structural optimization of crashworthiness
Olea RA (1999) Geostatistics for engineers and earth scientists.
Luwer, London
Rijpkema JJM, Etman LFP, Schoofs AJG (2000) Metamodel based
design optimization, including design sensitivities. Proceedings
SMSMEO workshop, Denmark University of Technology, Lyn-
gby, November 16–18, 2000
Roux WJ, Stander N, Haftka RT (1998) Response surface approx-
imations for structural optimization. Int J Numer Methods Eng
42:517–534
Schramm U, Thomas H (1998) Crashworthiness design using struc-
tural optimization. AIAA Paper, 98-4729
Schramm U (2001) Multi-disciplinary optimization for NHV and
crashworthiness. In: Bathe KJ (ed) The first MIT conference on
computational fluid and solid mechanics (Boston, June 12–15,
2001). Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp721–724
Simpson TW, Maurey TM, Korte JJ, Mistree F (1998) Comparison
of response surface and kriging models for multidisciplinary de-
sign optimization. Proc. 7th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symp.
on multidisciplinary analysis & optimization, St Louis, pp381–
391
243
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Kodiyalam S, Yang R-J (2000) Optimiza-
tion of car body under constraints of noise, vibration, and harsh-
ness (NVH), and crash. AIAA Paper 2000-1521
Stander N (1999) LS-OPT user’s manual v. 1. Livermore Software
Technology Company, Livermore
Stein ML (1999) Interpolation of spatial data – some theory for krig-
ing, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
Venter G, Haftka RT (1997) Minimum-bias based experimental de-
sign for constructing response surfaces in structural optimization.
In: 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dy-
namics and materials conference, Kissimmee, pp1225–1238
Yamazaki K, Han J (1998) Maximization of the crushing energy ab-
sorption of tubes, Struct Optim 16:37–46
Yang R-J, Gu L, Tho CH, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (2001) Multidis-
ciplinary design optimization of a full vehicle with high perform-
ance computing, AIAA Paper, 2001-1273
Yang R-J, Wang N, Tho CH, Bobineau JP (2001) Metamodelling de-
velopment for vehicle frontal impact simulation. In: Proceedings
of ASME design engineering technical conferences, Pittsburgh,
PA, September 2001