Figure 2
The hierarchical flowchart explains the structural crashworthiness process. At the top, an oval labeled “Structural Crashworthiness” branches left to “Target Evaluation” and right to “Parameters Evaluation”. These contribute to “Structure Concept,” then to “Experimental Setup,” which also draws from “Standard slash Regulation”. Downward, “Experimental Setup” links to “F E M Validation,” as does feedback from “Vehicle Response”. “F E M Validation” then branches into four parallel outputs: “Dynamic Response,” “Structural Collapse,” “Energy Absorption,” and “Deformation,” which all feed into “Passenger Integrity”. If requirements are met (“Yes”), the path continues to “Structure Optimisation,” “Analysis,” “Evaluation Response,” and concludes at “Crashworthy Structure”. Feedback loops connect from “Passenger Integrity” to “Target Evaluation” and from “Evaluation Response” back to “Collision resistance criteria,” which can inform “Standard slash Regulation”. This chart traces the full loop from design and evaluation to regulation and final structural validation.Development process of a crashworthy structure. Source(s): Authors’ own creation, based on Zhu et al.’s (2021) chart, Xue et al. (2016) and Zhang et al.’s (2012) chart