Method, system and equipment for determining pedestrian head protection collision result and medium

Abstract

The invention discloses a method, a system and equipment for determining a pedestrian head protection collision result and a medium, and relates to the technical field of vehicles. The method comprises the following steps: acquiring a first simulation marking result of a head injury value of pedestrian head protection collision; determining a target test point according to the first simulation marking result; the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point and the first simulation marking result are subjected to benchmarking, the change trend of the head injury value is recognized, a target prediction map of the head injury value is determined, and the target prediction map is used for representing the change trend of the head injury value. According to the method provided by the invention, the simulation marking result of the pedestrian head protection collision is combined with the test marking result, the change trend of the head injury value is automatically identified, and the prediction map of the head injury value is obtained, so that the automatic processing of the pedestrian head protection collision result is realized, the data processing process can be simplified, and the data processing efficiency is improved. And the accuracy and reliability of result processing are improved.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present application relates to the technical field of vehicles, and particularly to a method, system, device and medium for determining the head collision result of pedestrian protection. Background Art

[0002] Generally, the post-processing method for the head collision result of pedestrian protection is as follows: First, record and count the head injury value (Head Injury Criterion, HIC) of each test point by handwriting, PPT, EXCEL, etc. Then, manually mark the color (or select the color and mark the HIC injury value label). Finally, calculate the total score according to the evaluation method of the injury value in different regulations. However, this method has a cumbersome and repetitive operation process and cannot ensure that there are no errors in reading and calculating a large number of injury values, consuming a lot of manpower and material resources. Summary of the Invention

[0003] Object of the Invention: The embodiments of the present application provide a method, system, device and medium for determining the head collision result of pedestrian protection to simplify the processing process of the head collision result of pedestrian protection and improve the accuracy and reliability of result processing.

[0004] Technical Solution: A method for determining the head collision result of pedestrian protection according to an embodiment of the present application includes: obtaining a first simulation marking result of the head injury value of the head collision of pedestrian protection;

[0005] Determining a target test point according to the first simulation marking result;

[0006] Comparing the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result to identify the change trend of the head injury value, so as to determine a target prediction graph of the head injury value, and the target prediction graph is used to characterize the change trend of the head injury value.

[0007] In some embodiments, the method for determining the target prediction graph includes:

[0008] If the comparison result is inconsistent, adjusting the first simulation marking result according to the test marking result of the head injury value according to a preset adjustment rule to determine the target prediction graph.

[0009] In some embodiments, the method for determining that the comparison result is inconsistent includes:

[0010] Determining that there is a marking change between the test marking result of the head injury value and the first simulation marking result;

[0011] The method for determining the target prediction graph includes:

[0012] The test marking results of the head injury value shall prevail, and the simulation marking results corresponding to the area where the marking changes occur shall be adjusted according to the preset injury value adjustment ratio.

[0013] In some embodiments, a method for determining that a marking change has occurred includes: a test marking result of a head injury value is worse than the first simulation marking result;

[0014] The method for determining the target prediction map includes:

[0015] The preset damage value is adjusted and scaled.

[0016] In some embodiments, the method for determining the target prediction map further includes: if the benchmarking results are consistent, determining whether to adjust the first simulation marking result according to a preset injury value adjustment ratio based on the margin size and the overall score of the head injury value.

[0017] In some embodiments, before comparing the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result, the method further includes:

[0018] Preprocessing the test marking results of the head injury value of the target test point;

[0019] The target test point includes a first side test point and a second side test point; the preprocessing includes:

[0020] Respectively counting the test marking results of the head injury value of the first side test point and the test marking results of the head injury value of the second side test point;

[0021] Performing symmetrical statistics on the test marking results of the head injury value of the test point on the first side and the test marking results of the head injury value of the test point on the second side, respectively, to obtain a first symmetrical result and a second symmetrical result;

[0022] The first symmetric result and the second symmetric result are aggregated to obtain an aggregated test marking result.

[0023] In some embodiments, a method for determining a target test point includes:

[0024] Determine a point selection strategy for a head injury value test according to the first simulation marking result;

[0025] The target test point is determined according to the point selection strategy.

[0026] Accordingly, an embodiment of the present application further provides a system for determining a pedestrian protection head collision result, comprising: an acquisition module, configured to acquire a first simulation marking result of a head injury value of a pedestrian protection head collision;

[0027] A first determination module, configured to determine a target test point according to the first simulation marking result;

[0028] A second determination module, configured to compare the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result, identify the change trend of the head injury value, so as to determine a target prediction graph of the head injury value, and the target prediction graph is used to characterize the final result of pedestrian head protection collision.

[0029] Correspondingly, an embodiment of the present application further provides an electronic device, including a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, the method for determining the pedestrian head protection collision result as described above is implemented.

[0030] Correspondingly, an embodiment of the present application further provides a computer-readable storage medium, on which a computer program is stored. When the computer program is executed by a processor, the method for determining the pedestrian head protection collision result as described above is implemented.

[0031] Beneficial effects: Compared with the prior art, the method, system, device and medium for determining the pedestrian head protection collision result in the embodiment of the present application. The method for determining the pedestrian head protection collision result includes: obtaining a first simulation marking result of the head injury value of the pedestrian head protection collision; determining a target test point according to the first simulation marking result; comparing the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result, identifying the change trend of the head injury value, so as to determine a target prediction graph of the head injury value, and the target prediction graph is used to characterize the change trend of the head injury value. The method for determining the pedestrian head protection collision result provided by the present application combines the simulation marking result and the test marking result of the pedestrian head protection collision, automatically identifies the change trend of the head injury value, obtains a prediction graph of the head injury value, thereby realizing automatic processing of the pedestrian head protection collision result, simplifying the data processing process, and improving the accuracy and reliability of result processing. Description of the Drawings

[0032] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application, the following will briefly introduce the drawings required for the description of the embodiments. Obviously, the following drawings are only some embodiments of the present application. For those skilled in the art, without creative efforts, other drawings can be obtained according to these drawings.

[0033] Figure 1 It is a flowchart of a method for determining a pedestrian head protection collision result provided in an embodiment of the present application;

[0034] Figure 2It is a schematic diagram of the statistical results of the first-side test points provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0035] Figure 3 It is a schematic diagram of the statistical results of the second-side test points provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0036] Figure 4 It is a schematic diagram of symmetrizing the statistical results of the first-side test points provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0037] Figure 5 It is a schematic diagram of symmetrizing the statistical results of the second-side test points provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0038] Figure 6 It is a schematic diagram of summarizing the left-side symmetry result and the right-side symmetry result provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0039] Figure 7 It is a flowchart of another method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0040] Figure 8 It is the user VB operation interface provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0041] Figure 9 It is the user VB background processing command list interface provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0042] Figure 10 It is a schematic diagram of the overall process for a method of determining the pedestrian protection head collision result provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0043] Figure 11 It is a schematic diagram of a first simulation marking result provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0044] Figure 12 It is a schematic diagram of the test marking result after preprocessing provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0045] Figure 13 It is a schematic diagram of the simulation marking result adjusted according to the test result provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0046] Figure 14 It is a schematic diagram of a final prediction map provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0047] Figure 15 It is a schematic diagram of the principle structure block diagram of a system for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result provided in the embodiments of the present application;

[0048] Figure 16 It is a schematic diagram of the structure of the electronic device provided in the embodiments of the present application.

[0049] Reference numerals:

[0050] 101 - Acquisition module; 102 - First determination module; 103 - Second determination module; 100 - Determination system for pedestrian protection head collision result. Detailed implementation manners

[0051] The technical solutions in the embodiments of the present application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings in the embodiments of the present application. Obviously, the described embodiments are only a part of the embodiments of the present application, rather than all the embodiments. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative efforts shall fall within the protection scope of the present application.

[0052] It should be understood that although terms such as first and second may be used herein to describe various components, these components should not be limited by these terms. These terms are used to distinguish one component from another. Therefore, the first component described below may be referred to as the second component without departing from the teachings of the concept of the present application. As used herein, the term "and / or" includes any one of the associated listed items and all combinations of one or more of them.

[0053] Those skilled in the art can understand that the accompanying drawings are only schematic diagrams of exemplary embodiments and may not be to scale. The modules or processes in the accompanying drawings are not necessarily essential for implementing the present application, and thus cannot be used to limit the protection scope of the present application.

[0054] After research by the applicant, it is found that with the development of the automotive industry, the concept of people-oriented is more and more recognized. After all, life is priceless. An automobile not only needs to protect the occupants in the vehicle, but also needs to protect the safety of pedestrians. As vulnerable road users, pedestrians are very likely to be seriously injured in accidents. Not only does the European New Car Assessment Programme (ENCAP) evaluate pedestrian protection, but the China New Car Assessment Program (C-NCAP) and the China Insurance Automotive Safety Index (C-IASI) regulations also incorporate pedestrian heads and legs into the evaluation system in combination with the domestic traffic conditions.

[0055] For pedestrian head collision safety, due to the large number of collision points, it is impossible to test hundreds of test points. This requires the manufacturer to provide simulation prediction scores and further adjust the proportion using a correction factor, which is obtained based on experimental verification. The verification points are randomly selected grid points and are distributed proportionally in the predicted color area. Among them, the correction factor is obtained by dividing the actual total score of the verification test points by the predicted total score of the verification test points. The correction factor will be applied to all grid points (except the default grid points and blue points). For different standards, the acceptable range of the correction factor is different. If it is outside the allowable correction range, the coefficient will be reduced, and then multiplied by the original predicted score, resulting in a reduction in the total score. This requires ensuring that the correction factor is 1 to guarantee a stable star rating score. The relevant requirements for the correction factor include the correction factor requirements for the C-NCAP assessment by CATARC and the correction factor requirements for the CIASI assessment by CIRI. Among them, the correction factor requirements for the C-NCAP assessment by CATARC are as follows: the correction factor for the 2018 version of C-NCAP is 0.75 - 1.25; the correction factor for the 2021 version of C-NCAP is 0.8 - 1.2; the correction factor for the 2026 version of C-NCAP is 0.85 - 1.15; the correction factor for the 2027 version of C-NCAP is 0.85 - 1. Among them, the correction factor requirements for the CIASI assessment by CIRI are as follows: the correction factor requirements for the 2023 version of the China Insurance Index are that a correction factor between 0.750 and 1.250 will be accepted. If the correction factor is not within this range, the original correction factor will be processed according to the results of the test points.

[0056] According to official statistics, driven by virtual assessment, the industry's simulation prediction accuracy has been increasing year by year. Among them, in 2022 and 2023, it can basically reach between 0.85 and 1.15. To improve the evaluation rules, in the future, it is considered to use the prediction result as the highest head form score that can be obtained.

[0057] In the current post-processing of pedestrian head collision results, it is mostly used to record and count the HIC injury values of each test point by handwriting, PPT, EXCEL, etc. Then, manually mark the color (or select the color and mark the HIC injury value label). Finally, calculate the total score according to the evaluation method of injury values under different procedures. This processing process is cumbersome and repetitive and cannot guarantee that there are no errors in reading and calculating a large number of injury values, consuming a lot of time of safety engineers. It can be seen that the existing technology mainly relies on a large amount of mechanical repetitive work by safety engineers to manually count injury values and then count the scores of working conditions according to different procedures, which not only wastes manpower and material resources but also cannot guarantee the accuracy of the statistical results.

[0058] In view of this, the embodiments of the present application provide a method, system, device, and medium for determining pedestrian head collision results to realize the automatic processing of pedestrian head collision results, which can simplify the data processing process and improve the accuracy and reliability of result processing.

[0059] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of a method for determining the head collision result of pedestrian protection provided in an embodiment of the present application. Please refer to Figure 1 The method includes the following steps:

[0060] Step 110: Obtain the first simulation marking result of the head injury value of the pedestrian protection head collision.

[0061] Among them, the first simulation marking result of the head injury value of the pedestrian protection head collision refers to the result obtained by simulating the HIC of the pedestrian protection head collision. Among them, the simulation can be performed using Computer-Aided Engineering (CAE).

[0062] Among them, the process of CAE simulation is as follows: Make the digital models of the three-dimensional computer-aided design (CAD) of each component into meshes. For example, draw meshes for the components of the vehicle, such as the hood, front bumper, headlights, fenders, glass, etc. After the meshes are drawn, make the corresponding components. Among them, the installation methods between components include snap connection, bolt connection, etc., which can be specifically set according to the actual situation and are not specifically limited here. After installing and matching each component, use a simulated head form to impact the part to be tested of the vehicle. Exemplarily, taking the hood test of the vehicle as an example, give the simulated head form a certain speed to impact the hood part of the vehicle.

[0063] In some embodiments, the marking of the first simulation marking result includes one or more of color marking, symbol marking, and text marking.

[0064] Among them, the color marking can be one or more combinations of various colors such as red, yellow, green, etc., which can be specifically set according to the actual situation and are not specifically limited here.

[0065] Among them, the symbol marking can be digital marking, letter marking, special symbol marking, etc., which can be specifically set according to the actual situation and are not specifically limited here.

[0066] Among them, the text marking can be in the form of naming marks by text, etc., which can be specifically set according to the actual situation and are not specifically limited here.

[0067] Among them, the head injury value (including simulation and test) of the pedestrian protection head collision result can be marked with one or more of color marking, symbol marking, and text marking, which can be specifically set according to the actual situation and are not specifically limited here.

[0068] Step 120: Determine the target test points according to the first simulation marking result.

[0069] For pedestrian protection head impact safety, due to the large number of impact points, it is impossible to conduct test on hundreds of test points. Therefore, it is necessary to select certain test points for test.

[0070] In some embodiments, the method for determining the target test points includes: determining the point selection strategy for head injury value test according to the first simulation marking result; and determining the target test points according to the point selection strategy.

[0071] Wherein, the first simulation marking result may be a head injury value color map of pedestrian protection head impact obtained through CAE simulation.

[0072] Wherein, the point selection strategy is: conduct preliminary point selection according to the head injury value color map obtained through CAE simulation, select the color boundary points, and confirm the color boundary. Finally, determine the target test points according to the confirmed color boundary. For example, assume that the middle area of the head injury value color map obtained through CAE simulation is green points and the outermost area is yellow points. Then, take the yellow points in the outermost area as the color boundary and conduct tests. If the head injury value corresponding to a certain test point, such as test point B, is green after test, and the HIC value is much smaller than the CAE simulation value, then it can be tested further outwards to increase the green points and thus increase the score. If the head injury value corresponding to this test point B is yellow after test, and the HIC value has little difference compared with the CAE simulation value, it can be considered that the difference between the CAE simulation and the test value is small, and the consistency between the simulation and the test results at this test point B is strong.

[0073] Step 130: Compare the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test points with the first simulation marking result to identify the change trend of the head injury value, so as to determine the target prediction map of the head injury value, and the target prediction map is used to characterize the final result of pedestrian protection head impact.

[0074] Wherein, the comparison refers to comparing or contrasting the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test points with the first simulation marking result.

[0075] Among them, the change trend of the head injury value includes that the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point is the same as the first simulation marking result (where "the same" is used to represent the cases of being exactly the same and the deviation between the two being less than the set threshold), and the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point is quite different from the first simulation marking result (where "quite different" is used to represent the case where the deviation between the two is greater than the set threshold), etc. Among them, the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point being quite different from the first simulation marking result includes: the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point is better than the first simulation marking result, and the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point is worse than the first simulation marking result. Among them, the quality of the marking result can be determined by comparing the magnitudes of the head injury values. For example, if the head injury value of the first simulation marking result is greater than the head injury value of the test marking result, it means that the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point is worse than the first simulation marking result, etc. Specifically, it can be set according to the actual situation and will not be specifically limited here.

[0076] In some embodiments, the method for determining the target prediction map includes: if the comparison result is inconsistent, then adjust the first simulation marking result according to the test marking result of the head injury value according to a preset adjustment rule to determine the target prediction map.

[0077] Among them, the preset adjustment rule is: adjust according to the injury value adjustment rule set in the initial simulation (such as the first simulation). For example, what is set in the initial simulation is: if HIC is less than 650, then the corresponding marking is green. If the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point is inconsistent with the first simulation marking result, for example, the HIC at a certain test point position in the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point is 649, while the HIC at the corresponding test point position in the first simulation marking result is 661, then according to the rule "if HIC is less than 650, then the corresponding marking is green", mark the HIC at this test point position in the first simulation marking result as green according to this rule, that is, take the test result as the standard and adjust the simulation result according to the test result.

[0078] Specifically, compare the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point with the first simulation marking result. If the comparison result is inconsistent, then adjust the first simulation marking result according to the test marking result of the head injury value according to a preset adjustment rule. Thus, adjust the simulation result through the test result, making the simulation result closer to the true test value, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of predicting the head collision result of pedestrian protection to obtain the final prediction map of the head collision result of pedestrian protection.

[0079] In some embodiments, the method for determining inconsistent benchmarking results includes: determining that there are marking changes between the test marking result of the head injury value and the first simulation marking result; the method for determining the target prediction map includes: using the test marking result of the head injury value as the standard, and adjusting the simulation marking of the simulation marking result corresponding to the area where the marking change occurs according to a preset injury value adjustment ratio.

[0080] Among them, the occurrence of marking changes between the test marking result of the head injury value and the first simulation marking result includes: color changes of the marking and / or changes in marking symbols, etc., which can be specifically set according to the actual situation and are not specifically limited here.

[0081] Among them, the preset injury value adjustment ratio is the HIC adjustment ratio set in the original simulation. For example, when HIC is greater than 0 and less than 650, the corresponding marking is green and / or the letter a; when HIC is greater than 650 and less than 1000, the corresponding marking is yellow and / or the letter b; when HIC is greater than 1000 and less than 1350, the corresponding marking is orange and / or the letter c; when HIC is greater than 1350 and less than 1700, the corresponding marking is brown and / or the letter d; when HIC is greater than 1700, the corresponding marking is red and / or the letter e.

[0082] Specifically, compare the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result. If there are marking changes between the test marking result of the head injury value and the first simulation marking result, such as color changes, then use the test marking result of the head injury value as the standard, and adjust the simulation marking of the simulation marking result corresponding to the area where the marking change occurs according to the preset injury value adjustment ratio to correct the first simulation marking result, so that the simulation result is closer to the true test value, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of predicting the head collision result of pedestrian protection.

[0083] In some embodiments, the method for determining the occurrence of marking changes includes: the test marking result of the head injury value is worse than the first simulation marking result; the method for determining the target prediction map includes: scaling the preset injury value adjustment ratio.

[0084] Among them, the specific determination method for the test marking result of the head injury value being worse than the first simulation marking result can be: comparing the HIC value of the test marking result of the head injury value with the HIC value of the difference between the first simulation marking result. For example, assume that the HIC of a certain test point in the test marking result of the head injury value is 1350, while the HIC value of the corresponding test point in the first simulation marking result is 1500, which indicates that the test marking result of this test point is worse than the first simulation marking result.

[0085] Among them, scaling the preset injury value adjustment ratio means scaling the HIC adjustment ratio of the original simulation settings. For example, the initial simulation setting is that if HIC is less than 650, the corresponding mark is green. Scale the HIC, for example, set that if HIC is less than 585, the corresponding mark is green; if HIC is greater than 585, the corresponding mark is yellow.

[0086] Specifically, compare the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result. If the test marking result of the head injury value is worse than the first simulation marking result, scale the preset injury value adjustment ratio to correct the first simulation marking result, so that the simulation result is closer to the real test value, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the head collision result prediction for pedestrian protection.

[0087] In some embodiments, the method for determining the target prediction map further includes: if the comparison results are the same, determine whether to adjust the first simulation marking result according to the margin size and the overall score of the head injury value according to the preset injury value adjustment ratio. Among them, the margin size refers to the difference size of the injury value relative to the corresponding value range. For example, if the difference between the HIC injury value measured in the test and the HIC of the CAE simulation is within 5%, the CAE simulation data can be used as the final injury value prediction reference. If the difference between the HIC injury value measured in the test and the HIC of the CAE simulation is about 10%, adjust the HIC calculated by the CAE simulation according to the HIC injury value measured in the test. For example, scale the injury value calculated by the CAE simulation by 10%, and change the initial setting that if HIC is less than 650, it is set to green to if HIC is less than 585, it is set to green. Among them, 585 is the result after shrinking 650 by 10%.

[0088] Among them, the test marking result of the head injury value and the first simulation marking result do not show mark changes, including: the color of the mark does not change and / or the mark symbol does not appear to change, etc., which can be specifically set according to the actual situation and will not be specifically limited here.

[0089] In some embodiments, before comparing the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result, it further includes: preprocessing the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point; the target test point includes a first-side test point and a second-side test point; the preprocessing includes: respectively counting the test marking results of the head injury values of the first-side test points and the second-side test points; respectively performing symmetric statistics on the test marking results of the head injury values of the first-side test points and the second-side test points to obtain a first symmetric result and a second symmetric result; summarizing the first symmetric result and the second symmetric result to obtain a summarized test marking result.

[0090] Among them, the pedestrian protection head impact test usually needs to be carried out on both the left and right sides of the vehicle. Among them, the first side test point refers to the left side test point of the pedestrian protection head impact test, and the second side test point refers to the right side test point of the pedestrian protection head impact test.

[0091] Specifically, after obtaining the test marking results of the head injury values of the target test points, performing statistical, symmetric statistical, and summary processing on the test marking results of the left side test points and the right side test points is beneficial to ensuring the consistency and symmetry of the data, realizing automatic statistical, summary, and other operations on the test data, simplifying the data processing process, reducing the manual workload, liberating safety engineers from mechanical and cumbersome work to engage in other more creative work, and at the same time being able to meet the symmetry requirements of the pedestrian protection head impact test.

[0092] It can be seen from this that the method for determining the pedestrian protection head impact result provided by the embodiment of the present application combines the simulation marking result of the pedestrian protection head impact with the test marking result, automatically identifies the change trend of the head injury value, obtains the prediction diagram of the head injury value, and thus realizes the automatic processing of the pedestrian protection head impact result, which can simplify the data processing process and improve the accuracy and reliability of the result processing.

[0093] Exemplarily, in the technical solution of the embodiment of the present application, taking the marking result as color marking and letter marking as an example for illustration, the same below, and will not be elaborated.

[0094] Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of the statistical result of the first side test point provided in the embodiment of the present application; Figure 3 It is a schematic diagram of the statistical result of the second side test point provided in the embodiment of the present application. After obtaining the test marking results of the head injury values of the target test points, the test marking results of the first side test point obtained by statistics are as Figure 2 shown, and the test marking results of the second side test point obtained by statistics are as Figure 3 shown. Exemplarily, referring to Figure 2 , when it is set that HIC is greater than 0 and less than 650, the corresponding marking is green and the symbol marking is letter a, and the corresponding score is 1 point; when HIC is greater than 650 and less than 1000, the corresponding marking is yellow and the symbol marking is letter b, and the corresponding score is 0.75 points; when HIC is greater than 1000 and less than 1350, the corresponding marking is orange and the symbol marking is letter c, and the corresponding score is 0.5 points; when HIC is greater than 1350 and less than 1700, the corresponding marking is brown and the symbol marking is letter d, and the corresponding score is 0.25 points; when HIC is greater than 1700, the corresponding marking is red and the symbol marking is letter e, and the corresponding score is 0 points.

[0095] For the convenience of use by line protection engineers, the programming language is integrated through the interface of the professional software EXCEL. After integration, the EXCEL user interface can display the operation interface. Through the user operation interface, the line protection engineer can select different working conditions according to the requirements of different test conditions, and at the same time can select and statistically analyze the injury values according to requirements such as result filling, symmetry, and comparison. For example, refer to Figure 2 , Clear All, which means that the data in the table can be cleared; Current represents the current operation interface; Clear&Fill means clear and fill; Fill Blank Only means fill only; Update HIC means update the injury value HIC; Reflect means symmetry; Base / Test means Base result or test result; Clear&Fill means clear and fill; Fill Blank Only means fill only, which can realize the filling of the injury value in the selected area; UpdateHIC means update the injury value HIC; Reflect means symmetry; Compare means result comparison. Headforms(Current) represents the current table, that is, the statistical data of the current version being edited; case represents the usage regulations; Margin represents the margin mentioned in this proposal (for example, if 10% is input, the value will be scaled according to 10% and the color / letter will be redefined according to the corresponding rules); HIC range represents the range of HIC values; Points represents the score of the HIC value; Color represents the color; Nr of points represents the number of color points corresponding to the number of points; Total score represents the total score.

[0096] Among them, Clear&Fill eliminates the result by reading the result or directly executing it and displays different colors. Its implementation principle is to post-process the result through meta, read the injury value HIC, identify and compare and analyze the HIC injury value, and set the corresponding color, so as to realize reading the result or directly executing to eliminate the result. Among them, Fill BlankOnly is used to realize the filling of the injury value in the selected area. Update is the update of the HIC injury value. Reflect is the symmetry of the HIC injury value, which can realize the symmetry of the injury values in the left and right areas; the left and right sides of the test of the headform of the test point are different. If there is no difference in the spatial structure of the two sides of the engine room, the results can be directly symmetrically processed. Compare can compare the results of two versions, generate a change rate. Its principle is to calculate the difference value of the injury value and generate a change rate. At the same time, the change rate is given a color, such as green for the result getting better and red for the result getting worse, which is convenient for identifying the difference in injury values and further judging the scoring strategy.

[0097] Figure 4It is a schematic diagram showing the symmetry of the statistical results of the test points on the first side provided in the embodiments of the present application. Figure 5 It is a schematic diagram showing the symmetry of the statistical results of the test points on the second side provided in the embodiments of the present application. Figure 6 It is a schematic diagram showing the summary of the left - hand side symmetry result and the right - hand side symmetry result provided in the embodiments of the present application. Specifically, Figure 2 the automatically symmetrical test - marking results of the test points on the first side obtained by statistics are as Figure 4 shown as the symmetry result of the marking results of the test points on the first side. Refer to Figure 4 , for the naming of test points, according to certain rules, for example, in the adult head - type test area, row 9, left - hand side column +3, the test point is marked as A9, +3; first, automatically read the left - hand side test points (i.e., the test points on the first side), that is, identify the column with "+", after reading the left - hand side results, the right - hand side damage values can be symmetrically filled through the Reflect button; for the right - hand side test points (i.e., the test points on the second side), similarly, identify the column with "-", after reading the left - hand side results, the left - hand side damage values can be symmetrically filled through the Reflect button. By this method, both the left - hand side test points and the right - hand side test points can be improved by symmetry for subsequent summarization of test values.

[0098] Similarly, Figure 3 the automatically symmetrical test - marking results of the test points on the second side obtained by statistics are as Figure 5 shown as the symmetry result of the marking results of the test points on the second side. After obtaining the symmetry result of the marking results of the test points on the first side and the symmetry result of the marking results of the test points on the second side, the symmetry result of the marking results of the test points on the first side and the symmetry result of the marking results of the test points on the second side are summarized to obtain the summarized result as Figure 6 shown. Refer to Figure 6 , NOchange means that the color has not changed; Better means that the result has improved; Worse means that the result has deteriorated. Among them, NO change, Better, and Worse are all quickly judged by data comparison to visually reflect. Nr of Points Number of points, refers to the number of corresponding color points; Rent is the percentage; Score change is the score change.

[0099] Figure 7 It is a flowchart of another method for determining the pedestrian protection head - collision result provided in the embodiments of the present application. As an implementation method, refer to Figure 7, the method for determining the head collision result of pedestrian protection includes: Step 210, obtaining the first simulation marking result of the head injury value of the head collision of pedestrian protection. Step 220, determining the first-round target test points according to the first simulation marking result. Step 230, comparing the first-round test marking result of the head injury value of the first-round target test points with the first simulation marking result, and obtaining the second simulation marking result after the comparison is consistent. Step 240, determining the second-round target test points according to the second simulation marking result. Step 250, comparing the second-round test marking result of the head injury value of the second-round target test points with the second simulation marking result, identifying the change trend of the head injury value, so as to determine the target prediction diagram of the head injury value.

[0100] Among them, the preprocessing methods of the first-round test marking result and the second-round test marking result are the same, both of which are the preprocessing methods provided by the embodiments of the present application.

[0101] Specifically, according to the first simulation marking result, that is, the initial simulation marking result, the target test points of the first-round test are determined, and then the first-round test is carried out according to the first-round target test points. After the first-round test, the first-round test marking result of the head injury value of the first-round target test points is compared with the first simulation marking result, and after the comparison is consistent, the CAE head injury value after the comparison is regenerated, that is, the second simulation marking result is obtained. Then, according to the second simulation result, the target test points of the second-round test are determined, and the second-round test is carried out according to the second-round target test points. After the second-round test, the second-round test marking result of the head injury value of the second-round target test points is compared with the second simulation marking result, identifying the change trend of the head injury value, adjusting the simulation result through the test result, making the simulation result closer to the real test value, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the prediction of the head collision result of pedestrian protection, so as to obtain the final prediction diagram of the head collision result of pedestrian protection.

[0102] This application uses Python language programming to read the pedestrian protection injury value limits, total scores, etc. of different regulations such as C-NCAP (China New Car Assessment Program), E-NCAP (European New Car Assessment Program), and C-IASI (China Insurance Automotive Safety Index Assessment Program) through artificial intelligence language. Among them, for the reading of the pedestrian protection head injury value, the test areas of different evaluation regulations are different. For example, the current version of C-NCAP is the 2024 version and the test area is WAD2300; the current version of E-NCAP is the 2026 version and the test area is WAD2500; the current version of C-IASI is the 2023 version and the test area is WAD2300. At the same time, for the modular division of the post-processing background, it is also convenient for the upgrade and version replacement of different test rules, and further optimize and update them. In addition, for the convenience of use by pedestrian protection engineers, the programming language is integrated through the interface of the professional software EXCEL. After integration, the EXCEL user interface can display the operation interface. Through the user operation interface, pedestrian protection engineers can select different working conditions according to the requirements of different test conditions, and at the same time can select and statistically analyze the injury values according to requirements such as result filling, symmetry, and comparison. Among them, the user operation interface is as Figure 8 shown in the user VB operation interface. It should be noted that Figure 8 the code in it is only for the purpose of demonstrating the interface. Among them, the background processing command list interface of user VB is as Figure 9 shown in the user VB background processing command list interface. Among them, the meanings and descriptions of the commands in the post-processing part command interface are as follows: Figure 9 shown in the ECE regulation result processing command interface. Similarly, for the NCAP points, corresponding NCAP points can be set to perform commands such as clearing, HIC copying, and symmetry processing Copy_HIC, that is, copying the HIC, for example, when performing Reflect on the left and right for injury value symmetry, the injury value HIC is filled and improved through the copying of the injury value HIC; ECE_clear_all is to clear the injury values of ECE; ECE_clear_get_value_Base / Current are to clear the corresponding Base or the values of the current operation interface and obtain the injury value HIC respectively. Similarly, ECE_fill is to fill the injury value; ECE_reflect is to symmetric the injury value.

[0103] It can be seen from this that this application is proposed by combining relevant pedestrian protection post-processing injury values and scoring work, using the Python language to replace the traditional manual and mechanical repetitive labor, programming according to the physical process steps of manual operation, the program includes the automatic reading of different working conditions results of different regulations of pedestrian protection, and at the same time automatically generates the required injury value cloud map and score statistical table, realizing a post-processing system for scientifically and accurately predicting pedestrian protection scores.

[0104] Figure 10 is a schematic diagram of the overall flow of a method for determining a pedestrian protection head collision result provided in an embodiment of the present application. Figure 10 , the method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result includes the following steps:

[0105] Step 1: Select points for the first round of tests: Preliminary point selection based on the simulated damage value color map of the first simulation marking result, rotate the color boundary points, and determine the color boundary.

[0106] Step 2. After the first round of tests, the marking results of the first round of tests are preprocessed, including: first, the test marking results of the left test points and the test marking results of the right test points are counted respectively. Then, the results of the left test points after statistics and the results of the right test points after statistics are symmetrically counted respectively. Finally, all the results are summarized. For example, taking the hood as an example, considering the impact of the hood deformation on the test results, only 2-3 points are made for a hood, so when selecting points in the left-right symmetrical area of ​​the hood space and the hood structure, the distribution of the left and right sides of the hood deformation is considered to determine the test points. Then, based on the test results, the left test results and the right test results are counted separately, and software (such as EXCEL) is used to make left-right symmetry and perform effective statistics. Finally, summarize the results of the first round of tests.

[0107] Step 3: Benchmark the first round test marking results with the first simulation marking results. After the benchmarks are consistent, regenerate the CAE damage value (or damage value color map) after benchmarking. Among them, the calculation of the CAE damage value is the pedestrian protection CAE test, that is, the process of modeling and analyzing to generate the damage value. This application mainly explains the post-processing of the CAE damage value after comparative analysis and re-correction.

[0108] Step 4, second round of test point selection: Combine the test points done in the previous stage and select points again according to the color map of the simulated damage value after the benchmarking in step 3 to supplement the test points. Confirm the marks of the test points that cannot be determined through supplementary tests, so as to scientifically and effectively select necessary test points, reduce the number of test points, and save test costs. Among them, the color of the test point that cannot be determined refers to the fact that it is impossible to determine whether the color of the CAE is equivalent to the actual test situation through existing tests.

[0109] Step 5: After the second round of tests, the marking results of the second round of tests are preprocessed, and the test results are summarized and statistically analyzed to obtain the overall damage value prediction color map. The preprocessing of the marking results of the second round of tests is the same as that of the first round of tests.

[0110] Step 6: Compare the second-round test marking results with the second simulation marking results to identify the transformation trend and give the final predicted color map. For example, when comparing the test results with the simulation results, if there is a color change, the test results shall prevail. Since the actual tests in the later stage are randomly selected points, the test results shall be the final judgment. Accordingly, adjust the color of the simulation results within this area by adjusting the setting ratio (HIC threshold, i.e., the preset injury value adjustment ratio). If the test results are worse than the simulation results, scale the preset injury value adjustment ratio. For example, assume that the original simulation setting is HIC < 650 is green, then scale it, such as setting HIC < 585 as green and HIC ≥ 585 as yellow. The supplementary test points are selected manually in the next round through comparative analysis; although they are manually selected points, through the comparison process of the entire post-processing comparative analysis, the unclear test points can be quickly and efficiently identified, enabling accurate selection. At the same time, the selection of unnecessary test points can also be reduced.

[0111] Figure 11 It is a schematic diagram of a first simulation marking result provided in an embodiment of the present application. Figure 12 It is a schematic diagram of the test marking result after preprocessing provided in an embodiment of the present application. Figure 13 It is a schematic diagram of a simulation marking result adjusted according to the test results provided in an embodiment of the present application. Figure 14 It is a schematic diagram of a final prediction map provided in an embodiment of the present application. Among them, Figure 11 shows the HIC marking result obtained from the initial CAE simulation test. Figure 12 shows the marking result after the left-side statistics, right-side statistics, left-side symmetry statistics, right-side symmetry, and summary processing of the HIC marking result of the target test point. Compare Figure 11 the initial CAE simulation HIC marking result of Figure 12 with Figure 13 the HIC marking result measured in the test of Figure 12 to obtain the HIC marking result as shown in Figure 11 . And by adjusting Figure 14 the HIC marking result measured in the test of

[0112] Figure 15 It is a schematic block diagram of the principle of a system for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result provided in an embodiment of the present application. Correspondingly, an embodiment of the present application also provides a system for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result. Please refer to Figure 15, the pedestrian protection head collision result determination system 100 includes: an acquisition module 101, configured to acquire a first simulation marking result of the head injury value of the pedestrian protection head collision; a first determination module 102, configured to determine a target test point according to the first simulation marking result; a second determination module 103, configured to compare the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point with the first simulation marking result, identify the change trend of the head injury value, so as to determine a target prediction graph of the head injury value, and the target prediction graph is used to characterize the change trend of the head injury value.

[0113] The technical solution of the embodiment of the present application, by providing a pedestrian protection head collision result determination system, the pedestrian protection head collision result determination system provided by the present application combines the simulation marking result and the test marking result of the pedestrian protection head collision, automatically identifies the change trend of the head injury value, and obtains a prediction graph of the head injury value, thereby realizing the automatic processing of the pedestrian protection head collision result, which can simplify the data processing process and improve the accuracy and reliability of the result processing.

[0114] In some embodiments, the second determination module 103 is further configured to: if the comparison result is inconsistent, adjust the first simulation marking result according to the test marking result of the head injury value according to a preset adjustment rule, so as to determine the target prediction graph.

[0115] In some embodiments, the second determination module 103 is further configured to: determine that a marking change occurs between the test marking result of the head injury value and the first simulation marking result;

[0116] Taking the test marking result of the head injury value as the standard, and adjusting the simulation marking of the simulation marking result corresponding to the area where the marking change occurs according to a preset injury value adjustment ratio.

[0117] In some embodiments, the second determination module 103 is further configured to: the test marking result of the head injury value is worse than the first simulation marking result;

[0118] Scale the preset injury value adjustment ratio.

[0119] In some embodiments, the second determination module 103 is further configured to: if the comparison result is consistent, determine whether to adjust the first simulation marking result according to the preset injury value adjustment ratio according to the margin size and the overall score of the head injury value.

[0120] In some embodiments, the pedestrian protection head collision result determination system 100 further includes a preprocessing module, configured to: preprocess the test marking result of the head injury value at the target test point;

[0121] The target test point includes a first side test point and a second side test point; the preprocessing includes:

[0122] Respectively counting the test marking results of the head injury value of the first side test point and the test marking results of the head injury value of the second side test point;

[0123] Performing symmetrical statistics on the test marking results of the head injury value of the test point on the first side and the test marking results of the head injury value of the test point on the second side, respectively, to obtain a first symmetrical result and a second symmetrical result;

[0124] The first symmetric result and the second symmetric result are aggregated to obtain an aggregated test marking result.

[0125] In some embodiments, the first determination module 102 is further used to: determine a point selection strategy for a head injury value test according to the first simulation marking result;

[0126] The target test point is determined according to the point selection strategy.

[0127] Accordingly, the present application also provides an electronic device, see Figure 16 , Figure 16 The structure diagram of the electronic device of the embodiment of the present application is illustrated. The electronic device includes a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the method for determining the result of the pedestrian protection head collision are implemented. Since the method for determining the result of the pedestrian protection head collision is described in detail above, it will not be repeated here.

[0128] Accordingly, the embodiment of the present application further provides a computer-readable storage medium on which a computer program is stored, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the method for determining the result of the pedestrian protection head collision are implemented. Since the method for determining the result of the pedestrian protection head collision is described in detail above, it will not be repeated here.

[0129] In the above embodiments, the description of each embodiment has its own emphasis. For parts that are not described in detail in a certain embodiment, reference can be made to the relevant descriptions of other embodiments.

[0130] The above has introduced in detail the method, system, device and medium for determining the head collision result of pedestrian protection provided by the embodiments of the present application, and the principles and implementation manners of the present application have been elaborated by applying specific examples. The description of the above embodiments is only used to help understand the technical solution and its core idea of the present application; those of ordinary skill in the art should understand that they can still modify the technical solutions recorded in the foregoing embodiments, or perform equivalent replacements on some of the technical features; and these modifications or replacements do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application.

Claims

1. A method for determining a pedestrian head collision result, characterized in that: include: Obtaining a first simulation marking result of a head injury value of a pedestrian protection head collision; Determine a target test point according to the first simulation marking result; The test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point is compared with the first simulation marking result to identify the changing trend of the head injury value so as to determine the target prediction graph of the head injury value, wherein the target prediction graph is used to characterize the changing trend of the head injury value.

2. The method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result according to claim 1, characterized in that: The method for determining the target prediction graph comprises: If the benchmarking results are inconsistent, the first simulation marking result is adjusted according to a preset adjustment rule based on the test marking result of the head injury value to determine the target prediction map.

3. The method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result according to claim 2, characterized in that: Methods for determining inconsistent benchmarking results include: The test marking result for determining the head injury value has a marking change with the first simulation marking result; The method for determining the target prediction map includes: The test marking results of the head injury value shall prevail, and the simulation marking results corresponding to the area where the marking changes occur shall be adjusted according to the preset injury value adjustment ratio.

4. The method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result according to claim 3, characterized in that: The method for determining that a marking change occurs includes: determining that a test marking result of the head injury value is worse than the first simulation marking result; The method for determining the target prediction map includes: The preset damage value is adjusted and scaled.

5. The method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result according to claim 3, characterized in that: The method for determining the target prediction graph further includes: If the benchmarking results are consistent, it is determined whether to adjust the first simulation marking result according to the preset injury value adjustment ratio based on the margin size and the overall score of the head injury value.

6. The method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result according to claim 1, characterized in that: Before comparing the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result, the method further includes: Preprocessing the test marking results of the head injury value of the target test point; The target test point includes a first side test point and a second side test point; the preprocessing includes: Respectively counting the test marking results of the head injury value of the first side test point and the test marking results of the head injury value of the second side test point; Performing symmetrical statistics on the test marking results of the head injury value of the test point on the first side and the test marking results of the head injury value of the test point on the second side, respectively, to obtain a first symmetrical result and a second symmetrical result; The first symmetric result and the second symmetric result are aggregated to obtain an aggregated test marking result.

7. The method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result according to claim 1, characterized in that: Methods for determining target test points include: Determine a point selection strategy for a head injury value test according to the first simulation marking result; The target test point is determined according to the point selection strategy.

8. A system for determining the result of a pedestrian head collision, characterized in that: include: An acquisition module, used for acquiring a first simulation marking result of a head injury value of a pedestrian protection head collision; A first determination module, used to determine a target test point according to the first simulation marking result; The second determination module is used to compare the test marking result of the head injury value of the target test point with the first simulation marking result, identify the change trend of the head injury value, and determine the target prediction map of the head injury value, which is used to characterize the final result of the pedestrian protection head collision.

9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein: When the processor executes the computer program, the method for determining the pedestrian protection head collision result according to any one of claims 1 to 7 is implemented.

10. A computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, characterized in that: When the computer program is executed by a processor, the method for determining a pedestrian protection head collision result according to any one of claims 1 to 7 is implemented.

Images