JP3337675B2 - Evaluation method of vehicle panel damage - Google Patents

Description

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0001]

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 1. Field of the Invention The present invention relates to a method for evaluating damage to a vehicle panel, and more particularly to a method for evaluating damage to a vehicle panel suitable for use in estimating a repair when repairing a vehicle panel.

[0002]

2. Description of the Related Art For example, when a panel of a vehicle (automobile) is damaged or when a vehicle is traded in, an estimate for setting a repair cost or a trade-in price is often made. This estimation is performed mainly based on scratches and irregularities generated on the panel.

Conventionally, a method for evaluating the damage generated on the vehicle panel has not been standardized, and the evaluation criteria are various, and are actually based on the experience of the person who performs the evaluation. there were.

[0004] Some repair shops or dealers also prepare manuals for performing damage evaluations without having to be experienced. The evaluation method according to this manual includes the area of the damaged area, whether the damage is slight or severe (specifically, whether significant breakage, crushing, elongation, etc. is observed), the hammer, Many are evaluated based on the ability to work with dolly blocks and spoons.

[0005]

However, in the above-described conventional method of performing an evaluation based on the experience of an evaluator, even if the same vehicle panel is evaluated, evaluation results differ depending on the degree of experience of the evaluator. There is a problem that a case occurs.

[0006] In addition, even in the manual evaluation method, as described in the above-mentioned items, a large number of judgments by the evaluator are involved, and there is also a problem that the evaluation results may differ depending on the evaluator. Was.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention has been made in view of the above circumstances, and has as its object to provide a vehicle panel damage evaluation method that can accurately evaluate a vehicle panel damage regardless of an evaluator.

[0008]

Means for Solving the Problems In order to solve the above problems, the present invention is characterized by taking the following means.

According to the first aspect of the present invention, there is provided a vehicle panel damage evaluation method for evaluating a degree of difficulty indicating a degree of damage generated in a vehicle panel, wherein a rectangular area surrounding the damaged part is set. Calculating the basic difficulty based on the calculated area of the rectangular area; measuring the short side length (L), which is the length of the short side of the rectangular area; A damage depth (D) of the damage generated in the vehicle panel is measured, and a first depth correlated with a ratio (D / L) of the damage depth to the short side length.
And correcting the first correction value to the basic difficulty level.
The invention according to claim 2 is a damage evaluation method for a vehicle panel for evaluating a difficulty level indicating a degree of damage generated in the vehicle panel, wherein a rectangular area surrounding the damage occurrence site is set. Calculating the area of the rectangular area, calculating the basic difficulty based on the calculated area of the rectangular area, determining the number of press faces constituting the damage occurrence portion of the vehicle panel, and correlating with the number of press faces. Obtaining a second correction value, and reflecting the second correction value on the basic difficulty level.

According to a third aspect of the present invention, there is provided a vehicle panel damage evaluation method for evaluating a degree of difficulty indicating a degree of damage generated in a vehicle panel, wherein a rectangular area surrounding the damaged part is formed. Setting and calculating the area of the rectangular area, calculating the basic difficulty based on the calculated area of the rectangular area; measuring the short side length (L), which is the length of the short side of the rectangular area; A damage depth (D) of the damage generated in the vehicle panel due to the damage is measured, and a first depth correlated with a ratio (D / L) of the damage depth to the short side length.
Determining the correction value of the vehicle panel, determining the number of pressed surfaces constituting the damage occurrence portion of the vehicle panel, and determining the second correction value correlated with the number of pressed surfaces, and determining the first and second correction values. Reflecting the value on the basic difficulty level.

Each of the above means operates as follows.

According to the first aspect of the present invention, first, a rectangular area is set. The setting of this rectangular area may be set so as to surround the damage occurrence site, so that no experience is required and anyone can easily set the rectangular area.

When a rectangular area surrounding the damaged area is set,
Subsequently, the area of this rectangular area (rectangular area area) is calculated. Since the rectangular area area can be obtained by multiplying the vertical side and the horizontal side,
This can also be easily obtained. Here, the difficulty level for repairing the damaged part basically increases as the rectangular area surrounding the damaged part becomes wider. For this reason, in the present invention, the basic difficulty is calculated based on the calculated rectangular area area.

When the basic difficulty is obtained, the short side length (L), which is the length of the short side of the rectangular area, is measured.
The damage depth (D) of the damage generated in the vehicle panel due to the damage is measured. To measure the short side length (L), simply measure the length of the short side of the rectangular area using a length gauge,
Measurement can be performed easily and accurately regardless of the measurer. Further, the measurement of the damage depth (D) can be easily and accurately performed by using a depth gauge, a caliper, and a dial gauge, regardless of the person who performs the measurement.

Here, the difficulty of repairing a damaged portion increases as the damage occurs in a narrow area or as the deep damage occurs. Conversely, even if the damage is deep, even if the damage occurs in a wide area, the repair is relatively easy and the difficulty level is reduced.

Therefore, in the present invention, a first correction value correlated with the ratio (D / L) of the damage depth to the short side length, not the long side of the rectangular area, is obtained, and this first correction value is described above. The configuration reflects the basic difficulty level. Since the first correction value is correlated with the ratio of the damage depth to the short side length (D / L),
The value becomes larger as the shorter side length (L) becomes shorter and the damage depth (D) becomes deeper. Therefore, by reflecting the first correction value on the above-mentioned basic difficulty level, more accurate damage evaluation can be performed.

At this time, as described above, the measurement of the short side length (L) and the measurement of the damage depth (D) can be performed easily and accurately irrespective of the measurer. The ratio (D / L) of the damage depth to D is also obtained by a simple calculation process. Therefore, it is possible to easily and accurately determine the damage evaluation of the vehicle panel regardless of the evaluator's experience or the like.

According to a second aspect of the present invention, a rectangular area is set, the area of the rectangular area (area of the rectangular area) is calculated, and the basic difficulty is determined based on the area of the rectangular area. Are identical.

However, according to the present invention, when the basic difficulty level is obtained, the number of press faces constituting the damage occurrence portion of the vehicle panel is subsequently obtained. Here, the number of pressed surfaces refers to the number of pressed surfaces having the same surface shape characteristics at the damage occurrence location. That is, since a normal vehicle panel can be regarded as an aggregate of a plurality of surfaces having the same surface shape characteristics, the number of press surfaces having the same surface shape characteristics constituting the damage occurrence location is the number of press surfaces. .

More specifically, when the damage occurrence location is a flat portion, the damage occurrence location is composed of one press surface having the same surface shape characteristics. ". Further, when the damage occurrence portion has a V-shaped cross section, the damage occurrence portion is composed of two press surfaces having the same surface shape characteristics, and the number of press surfaces is “2”. Become. Further, when the damage occurrence portion has a W-shaped cross section, the damage occurrence portion is composed of four press surfaces having the same surface shape characteristics, and the number of press surfaces is “4”. Become.

As is apparent from the above specific example, the number of pressed surfaces is a value indicating the complexity of the panel configuration at the location where the damage occurs. Here, the difficulty for repairing the damaged part is
The greater the complexity of the panel configuration at the location where damage occurs, the larger the size. That is, if damage occurs in a portion having a complicated panel configuration, a great deal of labor and technology are required to restore the damage to the original state.

Therefore, in the present invention, a second correction value correlated with the number of press surfaces is obtained, and the second correction value is reflected on the above-mentioned basic difficulty level. Since the second correction value is correlated with the number of press surfaces, the second correction value increases as the number of press surfaces increases. Therefore, by reflecting the second correction value on the above-mentioned basic difficulty level, a more accurate damage evaluation can be performed.

At this time, since the number of press faces corresponds to the shape of the vehicle panel, the number of press faces can be easily determined by observing the appearance of the vehicle panel.
Therefore, it is possible to easily and accurately determine the damage evaluation of the vehicle panel regardless of the evaluator's experience or the like.

According to the third aspect of the present invention, since both the first and second correction values are reflected in the above-mentioned basic difficulty level, more accurate damage evaluation can be performed.

[0025]

Next, embodiments of the present invention will be described with reference to the drawings.

FIG. 1 is an enlarged view showing the vicinity of a damaged portion 11 of a vehicle panel 10A to be subjected to damage evaluation using the vehicle panel damage evaluation method according to the first embodiment of the present invention. . FIG. 2 shows a cross section taken along line C1-C1 in FIG.

This embodiment describes a basic damage evaluation method for a vehicle panel according to the present invention.
The description will be made assuming that the vehicle panel 10A has a flat plate shape.

Damaged portion 11 generated on vehicle panel 10A
First, the rectangular area 1 surrounding the damaged portion 11 is evaluated.
2 (indicated by a broken line in the figure) is set. This rectangular area 12
Is set so as to be a minimum area including the damaged portion 11. Since the rectangular area 12 may be set so as to surround the damaged portion 11 where the damage has occurred, no experience is required for setting the area, and anyone can easily set the area.

After the rectangular area 12 surrounding the damaged portion 11 is set, the area of the rectangular area 12 (hereinafter, rectangular area S) is calculated. In the calculation of the rectangular area S, the vertical length L1 and the horizontal length L2 of the rectangular area 12 are measured.
This is obtained by multiplying (S = L1 × L2). At this time, the vertical side length L1 and the horizontal side length L2 can be easily measured using a scale, and the arithmetic processing is also an easy operation. Can do it.

Here, the difficulty of repairing the damaged portion 11 basically increases as the area of the rectangular region 11 surrounding the damaged portion 11 increases. That is, for example, when a part of the hood has a flaw of about 1 cm in length and width, and when the whole hood is deformed or the like, the latter is naturally more difficult to repair.

Therefore, in the present invention, the basic difficulty Y is obtained based on the calculated rectangular area S. The basic difficulty Y is set so that the value increases as the rectangular area S increases.

FIG. 3 is a diagram showing the correspondence between the rectangular area area S and the basic difficulty level Y. The specific value of the basic difficulty Y can be expressed in various ways. Specifically, when the basic difficulty Y is represented by the repair cost, the amount is a money amount, and when the basic difficulty Y is represented by the repair time, the time is a time. As described above, since the specific expression value of the basic difficulty level Y has various modes, in this embodiment, the basic difficulty level Y is set to Y1,
(Y1 <Y2 <Y3 <Y4) are displayed as parameters.

In FIG. 3, the area S of the rectangular area is indicated by a square decimator (dm ² ). The calculated value of the area S of the rectangular area rounded off to one decimal place is compared with FIG. The degree Y is determined. Note that 1dm ² =
100 cm ² .

When the basic difficulty Y is obtained as described above, the damage depth D of the damaged portion 11 generated on the vehicle panel 10A due to the damage is measured. Here, the damage depth D refers to the distance between the deepest position in the damaged portion 11 and the panel surface. The damage depth D is, for example, as shown in FIG.
(See JIS B 7518).

The depth gauge 13 is configured such that the main scale 13b can move in the direction of the arrow in the figure with respect to the main body 13a. Further, a measurement reference surface 13c is provided on the main body 13a. Further, the depth gauge 13 is provided with a scale (including a vernier) for measuring the amount of protrusion of the main scale 13b from the measurement reference surface 13c.

Accordingly, the measurement reference surface 13c is brought into contact with the outer peripheral position of the damaged portion 11 of the vehicle panel 10 and the tip of the main scale 13b is inserted into the deepest position among the damaged portions 11, thereby obtaining The measured damage depth D can be measured. As described above, the measurement of the damage depth D can be easily and accurately performed by using a measuring instrument such as the depth gauge 13 irrespective of the experience of the measurer.

Here, the degree of difficulty for repairing the damaged portion 11 is such that as the damage is generated in a narrow area, the damaged portion 1 is damaged.
1 is larger as the damage depth D is larger. Conversely, even if the damage depth D is large, if the damage occurs in a wide area, the repair is relatively easy and the above-mentioned difficulty level is reduced.

Therefore, in the present invention, the ratio of the damage depth to the short side length L1 (D / D
A first correction value A1 correlated with L1) was obtained, and the first correction value A1 was reflected on the above-mentioned basic difficulty Y, which was used as a damage evaluation value X of the damaged portion 11. Therefore, the damage evaluation value X is obtained by the following equation.

X = Y × {1+ (A1 / 100)} (1) Here, the first correction value A1 is correlated with the ratio (D / L1) of the damage depth D to the short side length L1. Therefore, the short side length L1
Becomes larger as the damage depth D becomes shorter and the damage depth D becomes deeper. Therefore, by reflecting the first correction value A1 on the basic difficulty A, a more accurate damage evaluation can be performed.

FIG. 4 is a diagram showing the correspondence between the ratio (D / L1) of the damage depth D to the short side length L1 and the first correction value A1. As shown in the figure, the value of the first correction value A1 is the ratio of the damage depth D to the short side length L1 (damage depth−
It is set to increase as the short side length ratio) increases. In this embodiment, the value of the damage depth-short side length ratio (D / L1) obtained by the calculation is rounded off to the third decimal place, and the value is compared with FIG. 4 to obtain a first correction value. A1 is determined.

At this time, as described above, the measurement of the short side length L1 and the measurement of the damage depth D can be performed easily and accurately regardless of the measurer. The ratio (D / L) is also obtained by a simple calculation process. Therefore, the damage evaluation value X of the vehicle panel 10A can be easily and accurately obtained regardless of the experience of the evaluator.

Next, a second embodiment of the present invention will be described. FIG. 5 is an enlarged view showing the vicinity of a damaged portion 11 of a vehicle panel 10B to be subjected to damage evaluation using the vehicle panel damage evaluation method according to the second embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 6 shows a cross section along the line C2-C2 in FIG.

In the description of the damage evaluation method of the first embodiment, the vehicle panel 10A shown in FIGS. 1 and 2 is described as having a flat plate shape for convenience of explanation. However, the actual vehicle panel 10B rarely has a flat plate shape, and most of them have a complicated shape. The present embodiment is characterized in that the shape of the vehicle panel 10B is also reflected in the damage evaluation.

In this embodiment, an example is shown in which a damaged portion 11 is generated at a position where a first press surface 15A having the same surface shape characteristic and a second press surface 15B having the same surface shape characteristic are connected. Will be described. Here, the “pressed surface having the same surface shape characteristics” does not necessarily have to be a flat plate shape, but refers to a continuous smooth flat surface or curved surface having no large bent portion and bent portion.

FIG. 7 shows the vehicle panel 10B shown in FIG.
It is a figure which shows the panel shape in the state where damage has not generate | occur | produced in the same position. As shown in the figure, the first press surface 15A and the second press surface 15B are joined,
Since the surface shape characteristics of the first press surface 15A and the surface shape characteristics of the second press surface 15B are different, a line 16 is provided between the first press surface 15A and the second press surface 15B.
A is formed (hereinafter, the line formed by the contact of the press surfaces having different surface shape characteristics is referred to as a press line).

When a damaged portion 11 is generated at a portion where two or more (two in this embodiment) press surfaces 15A and 15B having different surface shape characteristics are in contact with each other, the damaged portion 11 is repaired when the damaged portion 11 is repaired. 11 repair and each press surface 15A, 15B
The two processes of repairing the parts that come into contact with each other are required, and the difficulty of repair increases. Therefore, as described above, in the present embodiment, the configuration of the vehicle panel 10B is configured to reflect the shape of the vehicle panel 10B in the damage evaluation and improve the accuracy of the damage evaluation. Hereinafter, a specific damage evaluation method in the present embodiment will be described.

The evaluation method in this embodiment is based on the rectangular area 1
2 and the rectangular area S of the rectangular area 12
Is calculated, and the processing for obtaining the basic difficulty Y based on the rectangular area S is the same as that of the first embodiment.

However, in this embodiment, the basic difficulty Y
Is obtained, the number of press faces constituting the damage occurrence portion of the vehicle panel 10B is subsequently obtained. Here, the number of pressed surfaces refers to the number of pressed surfaces having the same surface shape characteristics at the location where the damaged portion 11 has occurred. That is, since the normal vehicle panel 10B can be regarded as an aggregate of a plurality of surfaces having the same surface shape characteristics, the number of press surfaces having the same surface shape characteristics constituting the damage occurrence location is equal to the number of press surfaces. Become.

A specific method of obtaining the number of press faces will be described with reference to FIGS. Fig. 8
As shown in (A) and (B), when the vehicle panels 10C and 10D are continuous smooth flat surfaces or curved surfaces having no bent portion and no bent portion, the damage occurrence portions have the same surface shape characteristics. , The number of press surfaces is “1”.

As shown in FIGS. 9A and 9B,
When the damage occurrence portion has a V-shaped cross section or a shape similar thereto, the damage occurrence portion is composed of two press surfaces 15A and 15B having the same surface shape characteristics. , The number of press faces is “2”. Also,
One press line 16A is formed at a position where the two press surfaces 15A and 15B are in contact with each other.

As shown in FIGS. 10 (A) and 10 (B), when the damage occurrence portion has a substantially hook shape or a Mt. Fuji shape, the damage occurrence portion has the same surface shape characteristics. The number of press faces is "3" because the press faces are constituted by the press faces 15A to 15C. In addition, each press surface 15
A, 15B, and 15C are in contact with each other, and a total of two press lines 16A. 16B are formed. Further, FIG.
As shown in the figure, when the damage occurrence location has a W-shaped cross section, the damage occurrence location is composed of four press surfaces 15A to 15D having the same surface shape characteristics. The number is "4". In addition, each press surface 15
A total of three press lines 16 </ b> A to 16 </ b> C are formed at the portions where A, 15B, 15C, and 15D are in contact.

As is clear from the above specific example, the number of pressed surfaces is a value indicating the complexity of the panel configuration at the location where damage has occurred. Here, the difficulty of repairing the damaged portion 11 increases as the panel configuration at the damage occurrence location becomes more complicated as described above. That is, if damage occurs in a portion having a complicated panel configuration, a great deal of labor and technology are required to restore the damage to the original state.

Therefore, in the present invention, a second correction value A2 correlated with the number of press faces is obtained, and the second correction value A2 is reflected on the above-mentioned basic difficulty Y. Also, the first
The first correction value A1 obtained based on the damage depth-short side length ratio (D / L1) described in the embodiment is also configured to be reflected on the basic difficulty Y.

On the other hand, the degree of difficulty of repairing the damaged portion 11 also changes depending on the state of painting at the damaged portion. Specifically, the repair process is more troublesome for a metallic paint than for a normal paint, and the repair process is more troublesome for a mica paint than a metallic paint.

For this reason, in the present embodiment, the third correction value A3 is obtained based on the coating state at the damage generating portion, and the third correction value A3 is also reflected in the basic difficulty Y. Therefore, the damage evaluation value X in this embodiment is:
It is obtained by the following equation.

X = Y × [{1+ (A1 + A2 + A3) / 100}] (2) FIG. 12 is a diagram showing the correspondence between the number of press faces and the second correction value A2. As shown in the drawing, the value of the second correction value A2 is set to increase as the number of press surfaces increases. That is, since the second correction value A2 is correlated with the number of press faces, the second correction value A2 becomes larger as the number of press faces increases. Therefore, by reflecting the second correction value A2 on the basic difficulty Y, it is possible to reflect the difficulty of repair due to the complexity of the panel configuration on the basic difficulty Y, and to perform a more accurate damage evaluation. It is possible to do.

At this time, since the number of pressed surfaces corresponds to the shape of the vehicle panel 10B, the number of pressed surfaces can be easily determined by observing the appearance of the vehicle panel 10B. Therefore, the number of press faces can be easily and accurately obtained regardless of the experience of the evaluator.

Further, as described above, since the shape greatly changes at a portion where each press surface is in contact, a press line is inevitably formed. Let N be the number of this press line,
When the number of press surfaces is n, N = n-1 holds.

Therefore, as shown in FIG. 13, the second correction value A is based on the number N of press lines instead of the number n of press faces.
2 and the second number obtained based on the number N of press lines.
The correction value A2 may be reflected on the basic difficulty level Y. Since this press line can be easily counted by observing the appearance of the vehicle panel 10B, the press line can be easily and accurately obtained regardless of the experience of the evaluator.

FIG. 14 is a diagram showing the correspondence between the coating type and the third correction value A3. As described above, the degree of difficulty of repairing the damaged portion 11 also changes depending on the state of painting in the damaged portion. For this reason, in the present embodiment, the third table is obtained from the correspondence table of FIG.
Is obtained, and the third correction value A3 is also reflected in the basic difficulty Y.

Therefore, it is possible to reflect the difficulty of repair due to the paint condition on the basic difficulty Y, and it is possible to perform more accurate damage evaluation. At this time, the paint state can be easily determined by observing the appearance of the vehicle panel 10B. Therefore, the paint state can be easily and accurately obtained regardless of the experience of the evaluator.

As described above, in the damage evaluation method according to this embodiment, the first value obtained based on the damage depth-short side length ratio (D / L1), which is a value indicating the difficulty of repair. Correction value A1, second correction value A obtained based on the number of pressed surfaces
2, and the third correction value A3 obtained based on the painting state is reflected on the basic difficulty level Y, whereby the damage evaluation value X of the damaged portion 11 is obtained. Therefore, an accurate damage evaluation value X can be obtained.

As described above, the first to third correction values A1 to A3 can be easily and accurately obtained regardless of the experience of the evaluator. For this reason, the evaluation value X does not change depending on the evaluator, and a constant and accurate damage evaluation value X can be obtained regardless of the evaluator.

In the above embodiment, the first to third correction values A1 to A3 are all reflected in the basic difficulty Y. However, all the correction values A1 to A3 are not necessarily reflected in the basic difficulty Y. It is not necessary to reflect it, and it may be configured to selectively reflect it on the basic difficulty level Y according to evaluation conditions and the like.

Next, an example of an actual damage evaluation evaluated based on the above-described embodiment will be described. (1) Damage evaluation example 1 Short side length L1 = 100 mm, long side length L2 = 200 mm, damage depth D = 1 mm, number of pressed surfaces n = 1, coating type ... Damage evaluation value X for normal coating is It is required as follows.

First, when the area S of the rectangular area is obtained, S = L
Since 1 × L2, S = 200 cm ² = ² dm ² . Therefore, from FIG. 3, the basic difficulty Y in this damage evaluation example is Y2 (Y = Y2).

Subsequently, damage depth-short side length ratio (D / L1)
Is obtained, (D / L1) = 1/100 = 0.01. Therefore, from FIG. 4, the first correction value A1 in this damage evaluation example is 10% (A1 = 10).

Further, since the number n of press faces is “1”,
From FIG. 12, the second correction value A2 in this damage evaluation example is 0% (A2 = 0). Further, since the coating type is the normal coating, the third correction value A3 in this damage evaluation example is 0% from FIG. 14 (A3 =
0).

By substituting the values obtained as described above into the above equation (2), X = Y1 × [{1+ (10 + 0
+0) / 100}], and the damage evaluation X is 1.1.
× Y1 (X = 1.1 × Y1). Now, the basic difficulty Y is displayed as a repair fee, and the basic difficulty Y1 is 5000.
If it is a circle, by using this damage assessment method,
The damage evaluation X is 5500 yen. (2) Damage evaluation example 2 Short side length L1 = 100 mm, long side length L2 = 200 mm, damage depth D = 12 mm, number of pressed surfaces n = 1, coating type: Damage evaluation value X for normal coating is It is required as follows.

First, when the area S of the rectangular area is obtained, S = L
Since 1 × L2, S = 200 cm ² = ² dm ² . Therefore, from FIG. 3, the basic difficulty Y in this damage evaluation example is Y2 (Y = Y2).

Subsequently, the damage depth-short side length ratio (D / L1)
Is obtained, (D / L1) = 12/100 = 0.12. Therefore, from FIG. 4, the first correction value A1 in this damage evaluation example is 50% (A1 = 50).

Further, since the number n of press faces is “1”,
From FIG. 12, the second correction value A2 in this damage evaluation example is 0% (A2 = 0). Further, since the coating type is the normal coating, the third correction value A3 in this damage evaluation example is 0% from FIG. 14 (A3 =
0).

By substituting the values obtained as described above into the above equation (2), X = Y1 × [{1+ (50 + 0
+0) / 100}], and the damage evaluation X is 1.7.
× Y1 (X = 1.5 × Y1). Now, the basic difficulty Y is displayed as a repair fee, and the basic difficulty Y1 is 5000.
If it is a circle, by using this damage assessment method,
The damage evaluation X is 7500 yen. (3) Damage evaluation example 3 Short side length L1 = 50 mm, long side length L2 = 200 mm, damage depth D = 12 mm, number of pressed surfaces n = 1, coating type: Damage evaluation value X for normal coating is It is required as follows.

First, when the area S of the rectangular area is obtained, S = L
Since 1 × L2, S = 100 cm ² = 1 dm ² . Therefore, from FIG. 3, the basic difficulty Y in this damage evaluation example is Y2 (Y = Y2).

Subsequently, the damage depth-short side length ratio (D / L1)
Is obtained, (D / L1) = 12/50 = 0.24. Therefore, from FIG. 4, the first correction value A1 in this damage evaluation example is 100% (A1 = 100).

Further, since the number n of press faces is “1”,
From FIG. 12, the second correction value A2 in this damage evaluation example is 0% (A2 = 0). Further, since the coating type is the normal coating, the third correction value A3 in this damage evaluation example is 0% from FIG. 14 (A3 =
0).

By substituting the values obtained as described above into the above equation (2), X = Y1 × [{1+ (100+
0 + 0) / 100}], so that the damage evaluation X is 1.
7 × Y1 (X = 2.0 × Y1). Now, the basic difficulty Y is displayed as a repair fee, and the basic difficulty Y1 is 500.
When the cost is 0 yen, the damage evaluation X is 10,000 yen by using the damage evaluation method. (4) Damage evaluation example 4 Short side length L1 = 100 mm, long side length L2 = 200 mm, damage depth D = 12 mm, number of pressed surfaces n = 3, coating type: Damage evaluation value X for normal coating is It is required as follows.

First, when the area S of the rectangular area is obtained, S = L
Since 1 × L2, S = 200 cm ² = ² dm ² . Therefore, from FIG. 3, the basic difficulty Y in this damage evaluation example is Y2 (Y = Y2).

Subsequently, the damage depth-short side length ratio (D / L1)
Is obtained, (D / L1) = 12/100 = 0.12. Therefore, from FIG. 4, the first correction value A1 in this damage evaluation example is 50% (A1 = 50).

Further, since the number n of press faces is “3”,
From FIG. 12, the second correction value A2 in this damage evaluation example is 60% (A2 = 60). Further, since the coating type is the normal coating, the third correction value A3 in this damage evaluation example is 0% from FIG. 14 (A3
= 0).

By substituting the values obtained as described above into the above equation (2), X = Y1 × [{1+ (50 + 6
0 + 0) / 100}].
1 × Y1 (X = 2.1 × Y1). Now, the basic difficulty Y is displayed as a repair fee, and the basic difficulty Y1 is 500.
When the cost is 0 yen, the damage evaluation X is 10500 yen by using the damage evaluation method. (5) Damage evaluation example 5 Short side length L1 = 100 mm, long side length L2 = 200 mm, damage depth D = 12 mm, number of pressed surfaces n = 3, coating type: Damage evaluation value X in the case of metallic coating is It is required as follows.

First, when the area S of the rectangular area is obtained, S = L
Since 1 × L2, S = 200 cm ² = ² dm ² . Therefore, from FIG. 3, the basic difficulty Y in this damage evaluation example is Y2 (Y = Y2).

Subsequently, the damage depth-short side length ratio (D / L1)
Is obtained, (D / L1) = 12/100 = 0.12. Therefore, from FIG. 4, the first correction value A1 in this damage evaluation example is 50% (A1 = 50).

Since the number n of press faces is “3”,
From FIG. 12, the second correction value A2 in this damage evaluation example is 60% (A2 = 60). Further, since the coating type is metallic coating, the third correction value A3 in this damage evaluation example is 10% (A3 = 10) from FIG.

By substituting the values obtained as described above into the above equation (2), X = Y1 × [{1+ (50 + 6
0 + 10) / 100}], and the damage evaluation X is 2.2 × Y1 (X = 2.2 × Y1). Now, the basic difficulty Y is displayed as a repair fee, and the basic difficulty Y1 is 5
In the case of 000 yen, the damage evaluation X is 11,000 yen by using the damage evaluation method.

The numerical values used in the above description are merely examples for the sake of convenience of description.
Each numerical value is not limited to this.

[0087]

As described above, according to the present invention, damage evaluation of a vehicle panel can be easily and accurately determined regardless of the experience of the evaluator.

[Brief description of the drawings]

FIG. 1 is a view for explaining a damage evaluation method for a vehicle panel according to a first embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 2 is a sectional view taken along line C1-C1 in FIG.

FIG. 3 is a diagram showing a correspondence table between a rectangular area area S and a basic difficulty Y;

FIG. 4 is a diagram showing a correspondence table between a ratio (D / L1) of a damage depth to a short side length and a first correction value A1.

FIG. 5 is a view for explaining a damage evaluation method for a vehicle panel according to a second embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 6 is a sectional view taken along line C2-C2 in FIG.

FIG. 7 shows the same position as the vehicle panel shown in FIG.
It is a figure showing the panel shape in the state where damage has not occurred.

FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a vehicle panel in which the number of press surfaces is “1”.

FIG. 9 is a diagram illustrating an example of a vehicle panel in which the number of press surfaces is “2”.

FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating an example of a vehicle panel in which the number of press surfaces is “3”.

FIG. 11 is a diagram illustrating an example of a vehicle panel in which the number of press surfaces is “4”.

FIG. 12 is a diagram showing a correspondence table between the number of press surfaces and a second correction value A2.

FIG. 13 is a diagram showing a correspondence table between a press line and a second correction value A2.

FIG. 14 is a diagram showing a correspondence table between a coating type and a third correction value A3.

[Explanation of symbols]

 10A to 10I Vehicle panel 11 Damaged part 12 Rectangular area 13 Depth gauge 15A First press surface 15B Second press surface 15C Third press surface 15D Fourth press surface 16A First press line 16B Second press line 16C 3rd press line

──────────────────────────────────────────────────続 き Continued on the front page (58) Fields surveyed (Int. Cl. ⁷ , DB name) G01M 17/007 B60S 5/00 G01B 3/28

Claims (3)

(57) [Claims] 1. A damage evaluation method for a vehicle panel for evaluating a degree of difficulty indicating a degree of damage generated in a vehicle panel, comprising: setting a rectangular area surrounding the damaged part and an area of the rectangular area. Calculating the basic difficulty based on the calculated rectangular area area; measuring the short side length (L), which is the length of the short side of the rectangular area; and generating the damage on the vehicle panel due to the damage. Measuring the damage depth (D) of the damaged damage, obtaining a first correction value correlated with the ratio (D / L) of the damage depth to the short side length, and calculating the first correction value as the basic difficulty. A damage evaluation method for a vehicle panel. 2. A damage evaluation method for a vehicle panel for evaluating a degree of difficulty indicating a degree of damage generated in a vehicle panel, wherein a rectangular area surrounding the damage occurrence part is set and an area of the rectangular area is set. And calculating a basic difficulty based on the calculated rectangular area area; a second correction value correlated with the number of pressed surfaces, while determining a number of pressed surfaces constituting a damage occurrence portion of the vehicle panel; And reflecting the second correction value on the basic difficulty level. 3. A damage evaluation method for a vehicle panel for evaluating a degree of difficulty indicating a degree of damage generated in a vehicle panel, comprising: setting a rectangular area surrounding the damaged part and an area of the rectangular area. Calculating the basic difficulty based on the calculated rectangular area area; measuring the short side length (L), which is the length of the short side of the rectangular area; and generating the damage on the vehicle panel due to the damage. Measuring the damage depth (D) of the damaged damage and obtaining a first correction value correlating with the ratio (D / L) of the damage depth to the short side length; The number of press faces to be constituted is obtained, and a second
And a step of reflecting the first and second correction values on the basic difficulty level.