Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ymssp

Uncertainty optimization of pure electric vehicle interior tire/road

noise comfort based on data-driven
Haibo Huang a, c, Xiaorong Huang b, Weiping Ding a, *, Mingliang Yang a, Dali Fan c, d,
Jian Pang c, d, *
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, 610031 Cheng Du, Sichuan, China
b
Vehicle Measurement, Control and Safety Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Chengdu 610039, China
c
State Key Laboratory of Vehicle Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) and Safety Technology, 401120 Chongqing, China
d
Changan Auto Global R&D Center, Chongqing Changan Automobile Co., Ltd, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Communicated by Xingjian Jing Without the masking effect of engine noise, tire/road (TR) noise is increasingly becoming
noticeable in pure electric vehicles (PEVs) and represents a primary concern for drivers and
Keywords: passengers. Currently, numerous works have studied PEV motor and powertrain noises, but few
Pure electric vehicle studies have investigated the tire/road structure-borne (TRS) noise of PEVs. Therefore, in this
Sound quality
paper, the sound quality of TRS noise is studied through objective and subjective evaluations, and
Tire/road noise
the group paired comparison method (GPCM) is proposed to evaluate a large noise sample set.
Optimization
Data-driven The correlation between sound quality metrics and the subjective annoyance of TRS noise is
analyzed, and the contribution of chassis dynamic parameters to the TRS noise of PEVs is
quantified. In addition, because of the nonlinear transfer and complex characteristics of TRS
noise, the expected design results will easily be affected by material, processing and
manufacturing uncertainties, which are difficult to process with conventional optimization
methods. Therefore, to overcome the uncertainty problem, an improved interval analysis method
(IIAM) is proposed. This method is used to optimize the interior TR sound quality of PEVs while
treating riding comfort as a constraint. The optimized result of the IIAM is compared with that of
the advanced genetic algorithm (GA) optimization method. Through real vehicle verification, the
proposed IIAM outperforms the GA method in terms of accuracy and robustness.

1. Introduction

The automobile industry has entered a period of steady growth in connotative development. The rapid depletion of fossil-based
fuels and increasing environmental concerns have driven automobile manufacturers to embrace novel propulsion technologies [1].
Pure electric vehicle (PEV) technology has broken new ground for the automotive industry because of its eco-friendliness and energy
economy properties. Among the many characteristics of PEVs, such as drive capability, dynamic quality and appearance, interior
sound quality is an important concern for customers because it can be directly perceived by the driver and passengers. PEVs have less

* Corresponding authors at: School of Mechanical Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, 610031 Cheng Du, Sichuan, China (W. Ding), State
Key Laboratory of Vehicle Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH) and Safety Technology, 401120 Chongqing, China (J. Pang).
E-mail addresses: huanghaibo214@swjtu.edu.cn (H. Huang), 1220190017@mail.xhu.edu.cn (X. Huang), dwp@swjtu.edu.cn (W. Ding), yml@
swjtu.edu.cn (M. Yang), fandl@changan.com.cn (D. Fan), pangjian@changan.com.cn (J. Pang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2021.108300
Received 7 January 2021; Received in revised form 24 July 2021; Accepted 29 July 2021
Available online 14 August 2021
0888-3270/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

interior overall noise than conventional vehicles due to the lack of an internal combustion engine (ICE). However, without the masking
effect of an ICE [2], vehicle system noise, such as magnetic noise, gear noise and fan noise, which has been neglected previously, has
become prominent in the interior of PEVs [3]. Although the sound pressure level of these system noises is low, the interior sound
quality is reduced, and the psychology of passengers is negatively affected. Among these vehicle system noises, tire/road (TR) noise is
increasingly becoming noticeable and represents a primary concern for drivers and passengers.
TR noise is generated and transferred to the PEV interior through two routes: a structure-borne path and an airborne path [4,5]. TR
structure-borne (TRS) noise considers the structural vibrations that transfer from tires and roads to the suspension and car body and
result in structural noise radiation. TR airborne (TRA) noise can be described as radiation noise from the contact surface between tires
and roads and is transmitted through the car body into the interior. Despite the complexity of the involved noise paths, substantial
reductions in TRA noise have been achieved through acoustic envelope isolation and tire design [6]. With regard to TRS noise, progress
has been slower, which currently makes this type of noise the most important source of PEV interior noise below 3 kHz for driving
speeds above 40 km/h [7]. Therefore, in this paper, we are focused on the evaluation and optimization of TRS noise.

1.1. Related works of TRS noise evaluation and optimization

To improve the TRS sound quality of PEVs, first, a suitable method should be used to evaluate the interior noise. Many studies have
attempted this task, and subjective and objective evaluations are commonly used methods in the reported literature [8,9]. The se­
mantic differential method (SDM), rating scale method (RSM), and paired comparison method (PCM) are widely used to subjectively
evaluate vehicle interior sound quality [10]. Moreover, variance analysis and rank correlation analysis have been used to verify the
consistency of jury evaluations [11]. In [12], the SDM was applied to assess vehicle road traffic noise, and the sound perception of TR
noise was described as “rough” and “promiscuous”. In addition, to objectively evaluate the sound quality of PEV interior noise,
physical acoustic metrics, such as sound pressure levels and sound intensity, are used because they are convenient to apply and un­
derstand [13]. Kindt et al. [14] investigated the sound pressure level (SPL) of TR noise affected by the tire rolling speed, inflation
pressure, static preload and temperature. From the perspective of psychoacoustics, the loudness, sharpness, articulation index (AI) and
roughness are designed to represent specific perceived characteristics of noise; therefore, these sound metrics are suitable for eval­
uating interior TRS noise from different acoustic perspectives. Ma et al. [15] combined loudness, sharpness, roughness and tonality to
quantify the sound quality of permanent-magnet synchronous motors of PEVs at different motor rotation speeds and loads. In [16,17],
the interior sound quality of suspension shock absorbers and electric powertrains of PEVs was studied through psychoacoustic metrics.
In addition to the physical and psychoacoustic indexes, intelligent methods, such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) and extreme
learning machines (ELMs), have been introduced in the study of PEV sound quality evaluation [18,19]. However, few reports are
related to the sound quality evaluation of interior TRS noise of PEVs.
For optimization of the sound quality of PEV TRS noise, strengthening interior noise absorption and insulation is effective, but this
approach increases the cost and weight of the vehicle. Consequently, it is important to optimize the design parameters of the TRS noise
transfer path, i.e., the suspension dynamic parameters of PEVs. Duhamel et al. [20] presented an optimization method based on genetic
algorithms (GAs) to obtain targeted resonant frequencies of the network resonators for TR noise reduction. Kim et al. [21] used a finite
element model of a vehicle suspension system to study the sensitive design factors of road noise and proposed a progressive quadratic
response surface method for optimizing the interior road noise. These optimization methods [20,21] are based on the deterministic
method and are suitable for simulation analysis. However, in practice, there are inevitable errors or uncertainties related to material
properties, measurement processing and environmental changes [22,23], which may result in large errors between simulation results
and actual results using the classic deterministic optimization method. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the uncertainty properties
of parameters through uncertainty theory. The stochastic programming approach can describe imprecise characteristics. Wang et al.
[24] considered variability effects in modeling and used a stochastic programming method to optimize the vehicle side impact per­
formance. In stochastic programming, the uncertain parameters are considered random variables, and their probability distributions
should be given in advance [25]. However, the exact probability distribution of the uncertain variables required by a stochastic model
is difficult to obtain in practice, and small differences in the parameter probability distribution can cause large uncertainty analysis
errors. Compared with probability information, it is convenient to obtain the uncertainty bounds of parameters. Consequently, the
concept of “unknown-but-bounded” can be used to describe uncertainty. Based on this feature, Jiang et al. [26] proposed an interval
programming method for transforming the mathematical model of the uncertainty problem into a deterministic mathematical model
and used it to optimize the structure of an automobile frame. The interval method is a promising approach to analyzing and optimizing
the TRS sound quality of PEVs, but it has yet to be perfected for treating strong nonlinear uncertainty constraints.

1.2. Analysis of related works and the proposal

Based on the above analysis, many studies have been performed to evaluate and optimize the interior noise of PEVs and have
achieved effective results. However, the following commonalities and problems remain in the evaluation and optimization of the TRS
sound quality of PEVs:

(1) Most of the previous studies [8–19] related to the evaluation of the interior sound quality of PEVs are concerned with the noise
of permanent-magnet synchronous motors or other components. Few related studies have evaluated the TRS sound quality of
PEVs, and the relationship between acoustic objective parameters and the human subjective sensation of TRS sound quality of
PEVs has not been quantitatively analyzed. Motor assembly as the main noise source of PEVs has been gradually controlled, and

2
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Problem statement

The proposed interval

Treatment of the uncertain objective and constrains
analysis method

Conversion of the optimization problem

Selection of design parameters through TRS transfer path

PEV TRS noise

collection Design of experiment based on the Latin hypercube

Sensors arrangement and vehicular TRS noise test

Subjective evaluation of TRS sound annoyance through

the GPCM

Sound quality of TRS Objective evaluation of TRS sound quality through

noise evaluation psychoacoustic metrics

Influencing factor analysis of psychoacoustic parameters

on the TRS subjective sensation

Development of the approximate neural network model

Sound quality of TRS Optimization of the TRS sound quality annoyance

noise optimization through proposed IIAM

Optimized results comparison and validation

Fig. 1. Evaluation and optimization process of the interior TRS sound quality of PEVs.

TRS noise is increasingly becoming one of the most predominant noise sources of PEVs above 40 km/h. In addition, the TRS
noise of PEVs is quite different from that of conventional vehicles because of the change in vehicle chassis layout. Therefore,
studying the sound quality evaluation of the TRS noise of PEVs is necessary and crucial for the optimization of the TRS noise of
PEVs.
(2) To effectively improve the TRS sound quality of PEVs, it is necessary to optimize the TRS noise by matching the chassis dynamic
parameters. The traditional optimization design is a deterministic optimization method based on a single value, and the un­
certainty of design parameters is not considered. However, uncertain errors are often caused by variability effects in engineering
problems. Although stochastic programming considers uncertainty, its uncertainty is described by probability. This results in a
high cost of data acquisition, and the calculation accuracy is easily affected. In addition, the interval method is often used for
linear problems. The optimization of the TRS sound quality of PEVs is a strongly nonlinear problem. Therefore, it is necessary to
propose an effective uncertainty analysis method that is suitable for strong nonlinear uncertainty optimization.

Consequently, the sound quality evaluation and optimization of the TRS noise of PEVs is conducted in this paper. Fig. 1 shows the
evaluation and optimization process of the interior TRS sound quality of PEVs. First, an improved interval analysis method (IIAM) is
presented, which introduces a satisfactory degree for describing the quantification relationships of intervals and can be used to address

3
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

the strong nonlinear objective function and constraints. This method is used to optimize the sound quality of the TRS noise of PEVs
considering parameter uncertainties. Then, the dynamic design parameters in the TRS transfer path are selected. Through the design of
the experiment (DOE), a vehicle road test is performed to collect the interior TRS noise and seat vibration of the PEV. Furthermore, the
recorded noises are subjectively evaluated through an improved PCM, named the group paired comparison method (GPCM), to
quantify the sound quality annoyance of TRS noise. Meanwhile, the psychoacoustic metrics are calculated based on the recorded
interior TRS noise, and the relationship and influencing factors between the objective evaluation and subjective evaluation are
analyzed. Finally, the interior TRS sound quality annoyance of PEVs is optimized through the proposed IIAM using vehicle riding
comfort as constraints. The effectiveness and accuracy of the proposed method are compared with those of the conventional opti­
mization method, and the optimized results are verified via a real vehicle test.
The main contributions of this paper are: 1) The IIAM method has been proposed to solve the strongly nonlinear and uncertain
problems. 2) The GPCM has been proposed to evaluate the large noise sample set effectively and efficiently. 3) The correlation between
sound quality metrics and subjective annoyance of TRS noise is analyzed, and the contribution of chassis dynamic parameters to the
TRS noise of PEV is quantified.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the proposed IIAM is presented. In Section 3, the PEV interior TRS
noise experiment is performed. In Section 4, the subjective evaluation of TRS noise is implemented, and psychoacoustic metrics of TRS
noise are calculated. In Section 5, the sound quality annoyance of TRS noise is optimized and validated through the IIAM. Section 6
summarizes the conclusions of this paper.

2. The proposed IIAM

2.1. Statement of the problem

A general deterministic optimization problem with multiple objectives can be formulated as follows:
min f (X) = {fi (X)}, (i = 1, 2, ..., n)
s. t. gj (X)⩽cj , (j = 1, 2, ..., m) (1)
X l ⩽X⩽Xr

where X is a q-dimensional design vector, and Xl and Xr denote the feasible minimum and maximum vectors of X , respectively. f is the
objective function, and g is the constraint function. cj is a constant related to the i-th constraint function. n is the number of objective
functions, and m is the number of constraint functions. f and g can be constructed by simulation models, approximate models and
experimental tests. {⋅} denotes the set operation.
If uncertainty exists in the problem and is described using the interval method, an uncertain optimization model can be obtained as
follows:
min f (X, u) = {fi (X, u)}, (i = 1, 2, ..., n)
s. t. gj (X, u)⩽cIj , (j = 1, 2, ..., m)
cj ∈ cIj = [cLj , cRj ], (j = 1, 2, ..., m)
(2)
u ∈ uI = [uL , uR ]
uk ∈ uk = [uLk , uRk ], k = 1, 2, ..., p
I

Xl ⩽X⩽Xr

where u is a p-dimensional uncertain vector, and its uncertainty is described by an interval vector uI . The superscripts I, L and R denote
the interval and its lower and upper bounds, respectively. cIj is an interval related to the j-th constraint function. The objective function
f and constraint function g must be continuous with respect to u; therefore, values of f and g under possible combinations of u will form
an interval, called the interval number, instead of a real number. Thus, traditional deterministic optimization methods cannot be used
to solve the uncertain optimization model of Eq. (2). To address the above problem, an IIAM is introduced in the following subsections.

2.2. Treatment of the uncertain objective

In interval analysis, interval numbers can be measured by an order relation, which indicates that an interval number is better than
another but not the one larger than the other. A type of order relation between interval numbers AI and BI for the minimum problem is
defined as follows:

AI ⩽cw BI if Ac ⩾Bc and Aw ⩾BW

AI <cw BI if AI ⩽cw BI and AI ∕
= BI

Ac =
AL + AR
, Aw =
AR − AL (3)
2 2
BL + BR BR − BL
Bc = , Bw =
2 2

4
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

where ≤cw is an order relation for interval numbers, and the superscripts c and w represent the midpoint and radius of an interval
number, respectively. AI ≤cw BI means that BI is better than AI if the midpoint and radius of BI are smaller than those of AI . Through Eq.
(3), the uncertain objective function of Eq. (2) can be transformed to the following form:
min{fic (X, u), fiw (X, u)}
1
fic (X, u) = (fiL (X) + fiR (X)) (4)
2
1
fiw (X, u) = (fiR (X) - fiL (X))
2
For each specific X , fi (X, u) is an interval number, and its lower and upper bounds fiL (X) and fiR (X), respectively, influenced by the
uncertainty can be represented as follows:

fiL (X) = min fi (X, u)

u∈uI

fiR (X) = max fi (X, u) (5)

u∈uI
I L R
u ∈ u = [u , u ]
Through Eq. (5), the uncertain vector u is eliminated, and the uncertain objective function of Eq. (4) becomes deterministic.
Note that in Eq. (4), the objective functions f c and f w can be considered the expectation and deviation of the design objective,
respectively. By minimizing the two objective functions, the average performance and robustness of the design objective can be
ensured.

2.3. Treatment of the uncertain constraints

The positional relations between two interval numbers contain three conditions: overlapping, crossing and separation. The order
relation can qualitatively compare two interval numbers. Furthermore, to quantitatively compare two interval numbers, a satisfactory
degree is defined as follows:

min \ { 2Aw + 2Bw , max \ { BR - AL , 0 \ } \ }

P(AI ⩽BI ) = p = (6)
2Aw + 2Bw
( )
where P(∙) ∈ [0, 1] is a satisfactory degree and P AI ≤ BI = p illustrates that the interval number BI is superior to the interval number
AI with a satisfactory degree level of p. If Bw = 0, i.e., BL = BR , BI becomes a real number b, and Eq. (6) can be transformed to Eq. (7) as
follows:

min \ { 2Aw , max \ { b - AL , 0 \ } \ }

P(AI ⩽b) = p = (7)
2Aw
Based on the satisfactory degree introduced above, the uncertain constraints in Eq. (2) can be written in the following form:

P(gIj (X)⩽cIj )⩾λj , (j = 1, 2, ..., m) (8)

where λj is a predefined satisfactory degree level for the j-th constraint. λj can be adjusted between 0 and 1 to control the calculated
interval of X. λ = 0 and λ = 1 mean that the probabilities of satisfying uncertain constraints are 0% and 100%, respectively. P(gIj (X) ≤
cIj ) can be calculated through Eq. (6) or (7), and the lower bound gLj (X)and upper bound gRj (X) of gIj (X) influenced by the uncertainty
can be represented as follows:

gLj (X) = min gj (X, u)

u∈uI

gRj (X) = max gj (X, u) (9)

u∈uI
I L R
u ∈ u = [u , u ]
Through Eqs. (8) and (9), the uncertain vector u is eliminated, and the uncertain constraints of Eq. (2) become deterministic.

2.4. Conversion of the optimization problem

Through the treatment of uncertain objective functions and constraints, the uncertain optimization model of Eq. (2) can be
transformed into a certain optimization model as follows:

5
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Outer optimization (GA)

Update
Design vector

Inner optimization Design space and

(GA) uncertainty field

Uncertainty vector Design of experiment

Surrogate model Model training

Fitness of objective
functions and constraint
functions The inner
optimization
No process
Convergence?

Yes

Interval of objective Interval of constraint

functions functions

Evaluation function of Satisfactory degree

objective level of constraint

No

Penalty function Fitness function Convergence?

Yes

The optimized design interval

Fig. 2. Optimization procedure of the multiobjective IIAM.

min {fic (X, u), fiw (X, u)}, (i = 1, 2, ..., n)

s. t. P(gIj (X)⩽cIj )⩾λj , (j = 1, 2, ..., m)
(10)
u ∈ uI = [uL , uR ]
Xl ⩽X⩽Xr

where
1 1
fic (X, u) = (fiL (X) + fiR (X)) = (min fi (X, u) + max fi (X, u))
2 2 u∈uI u∈uI

1 1
fiw (X, u) = (fiR (X) - fiL (X)) = (max fi (X, u) − min fi (X, u)) (11)
2 2 u∈uI u∈uI

gIj (X) = [gLj (X), gRj (X)] = [min gj (X, u), max gj (X, u)]
u∈uI u∈uI

To facilitate calculation, the penalty function method and linear combination method are used to address the objective functions
and constraints; thereby, a nonconstraint multiobjective optimization model is obtained, as shown in Eq. (12).

6
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Vibration accelerometer Microphone Data acquisition system Microphone

Pressure of the front tire Pressure of the rear tire

Stiffness of the front subframe-body bushing Stiffness of the rear subframe-body bushing
Stiffness of the front control arm bushing Stiffness of the rear control arm bushing
Stiffness of the front suspension spring Stiffness of the rear suspension spring
Damping of the front shock absorber Damping of the rear shock absorber

Fig. 3. Sensor arrangement and vehicular TRS noise test.

min{Fi (X, u)}, (i = 1, 2, ..., n)

∑
m
Fi (X, u) = Hi (X) + η φ(P(gIj (X)⩽cIj ) − λj )
j=1
(12)
Hi (X) = αfic (X, u)/βi + (1 − α)fiw (X, u)/γi
u ∈ uI = [uL , uR ]
Xl ⩽X⩽Xr

where Hi is the evaluation function of the i-th objective, and α ∈ [0, 1] is a weight coefficient that controls the bias between the interval
midpoint and radius. The selection of α depends on the engineering requirement. βi and γi , which can be calculated through Eq. (13),
are normalized factors for fic and fiw . η is a penalty factor for constraint functions. φ(x) is a function that is defined in Eq. (14):

β = min(f c (X, u))

X
(13)
γ = min(f w (X, u))
X

φ (x) = (max (0, − x))2 (14)

7
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Table 1
Design parameters and the design space of the LHD.
No. Design parameters Baseline Lower bound Upper bound

#1 Pressure of the front tire (bar) 2.2 1.1 3.3

#2 Stiffness of the front subframe-body bushing (kN/m) 760 380 1140
#3 Stiffness of the front control arm bushing (kN/m) 440 220 660
#4 Stiffness of the front suspension spring (kN/m) 35 17.5 52.5
#5 Damping of the front shock absorber (kNs/m) 2.5 1.25 3.75
#6 Pressure of the rear tire (bar) 2.2 1.1 3.3
#7 Stiffness of the rear subframe-body bushing (kN/m) 620 310 930
#8 Stiffness of the rear control arm bushing (kN/m) 490 245 735
#9 Stiffness of the rear suspension spring (kN/m) 55 27.5 82.5
#10 Damping of the rear shock absorber (kNs/m) 2.0 1.0 3.0

2.5. Optimization procedure

In practice, most engineering problems cannot be modeled via an explicit function; thus, it is difficult to precisely obtain the
derivative information. Considering that the GA only requires the function values but not the function derivative information and has a
fine global convergence performance, it is an appropriate optimization method for solving the optimization problem of Eq. (12). The
optimization procedure is proposed as shown in Fig. 2. It is a nesting optimization problem. The outer optimization process is used to
optimize the design vector X , and the inner optimization process is used to calculate the lower and upper bounds of the objective
function and constraint caused by the uncertainty. For each design vector, the inner optimization process is called many times, and at
each inner iteration step, the evaluation model (such as simulation models and experiments) needs to be calculated, which results in a
high computational cost. Therefore, in this paper, the approximate model is introduced to accelerate the optimization time.

3. Vehicle TRS noise experiments

A real vehicle experiment is performed to collect the interior TRS noise, and a CHANGAN CS55 EV is used as the test vehicle. To
avoid the influence of PEV motor noise and wind noise, the vehicle TRS noise experiment is implemented on a drum test bench1, which
has a low background noise under 45 dB. Thus, the interior noise of PEVs can be used to represent the TRS noise of PEVs. In the
experiment, PEV interior noises above the driver and rear-right passenger seats are recorded using G.R.A.S. 40 HF2 microphones,
according to the GB/T 18,697 standard [27]. In addition, optimization of the structure of the PEV TRS noise transfer path may in­
fluence the performance of vehicle riding comfort. Therefore, vibration acceleration at the cushion, backrest and floor positions for the
driver and rear-right passenger are recorded for the ride comfort calculation using PCB 356B403 three-axis seat cushion accelerom­
eters, according to the GB/T 4970 standard [28]. The mounted positions of the microphones and accelerometers are shown in Fig. 3.
Considering that the TRS noise of PEVs is prominent at a medium vehicle speed [29], vehicle speeds of 40 km/h and 60 km/h, which
have been dragged by the drum, are selected for the experiment. A signal length of 10 s for noise and vibration is adopted. To obtain
sufficient and effective noise and vibration information, sampling rates of 20 kHz and 200 Hz have been selected [28,30], respectively.
The interior noise and vibration are recorded simultaneously. During the experiment, only a recorder is seated in the cabin. All the
windows are closed, and the air conditioning system is turned off. The temperature and humidity of the test laboratory are 25 ◦ C and
50%, respectively.
To collect sufficient data for analysis, several chassis statuses of PEVs based on the TRS transfer path are arranged. First, the design
parameters that affect the interior TRS noise are selected according to the construction of automobiles and TRS transfer path [31]. The
transmission of the road and tire excitation to the suspension system causes the chassis to vibrate. Through the vibration isolation of
the chassis components, the excitation force is then transmitted to the car body system and generates the TRS noise. Therefore, the
dynamic characteristics of the tire pressure, shock absorber damping, suspension spring stiffness4, subframe-to-body bushing stiffness,
control arm bushing stiffness and trailing arm bushing stiffness are selected for vehicle noise and vibration optimization. Then, the
DOE is implemented to guide the PEV bench test. The Latin hypercube design (LHD) method [32] is adopted, and 20 sample seeds
(including the original status) based on the above ten design parameters within the range of initial values * [0.5, 1.5] are generated. For
each round of testing, one sample combination of LHD design parameters was selected to substitute the original ones on the vehicle and
implemented the vehicle bench test. When the noise and vibration of PEV with the sample combination were collected, the next sample
combination is used for vehicle testing and recording, and so on. In addition, to control the experimental workload, the parameter level
is simplified using 5 conditions, i.e., 50% to 150% of the initial values with 25% intervals. The lower and upper bounds of the design
interval are shown in Table 1. This DOE is feasible because (1) valid samples are scarce in most practical engineering problems, and 20
sample seeds are considered a small sample category; (2) through the LHD method, despite the small sample number, the parameter
levels are sufficient; and (3) a variation range of ±50% ensures a large adjustable interval for each parameter [33].

8
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Noise Sample B
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1
2
3
4
5
ck
BA Check
6

Randomly Played
mly
(Randomly
Noise Sample A

Generated)
ed)
7
8
9
eck
AA Check
10 mly
(Randomly
Generated)
ed)
11
12
13
AB Testt
14 mly
(Randomly
Sorted)
15
Fig. 4. Design of TRS sound quality subjective evaluation through the PCM.

4. Subjective evaluation and sound quality metrics calculation

4.1. Subjective evaluation of TRS noise

Human hearing involves complex signal processing but has a short memory; hence, the sound perception of vehicle interior noise
should be evaluated through a playback system. The Sound Blaster AE-75 sound card and Sennheiser HD800 headphones6 are used in
this evaluation test to reproduce the collected TRS noise. To make an appropriate evaluation for the evaluator, each noise sample is cut
into 5 s using Cooledit software [34]. A jury of 12 males and 10 females between 18 and 50 years of age and with normal hearing ability
was recruited from automobile companies and universities to participate in the evaluation test. The background noise and temperature
of the evaluation site are 35 dB and 25 ℃, respectively.
The PCM is commonly adopted in noise subjective evaluation because it is convenient and can distinguish nuances between
samples. Fig. 4 shows a subjective evaluation design of noise sound quality through the PCM with 15 samples. The noise samples are
combined, replayed, and evaluated pairwise, which does not need evaluators to understand the noise background and can easily
distinguish noise samples with similar features. According to the k-th evaluator, the relative annoyance scores of noise samples A and B
are defined as follows:
⎧
⎨ 1, when A > B
scorek (A, B) = 0, when A = B (15)
⎩
− 1, when A < B
⎧
⎨ 1, when B > A
scorek (B, A) = 0, when B = A (16)
⎩
− 1, when B < A

where scorek (A, B) and scorek (B, A) refer to the relative annoyance between noise samples A and B, respectively, given by the k-th
evaluator, k = 1, 2, …, K, A = 1, 2, …, N, B = 1, 2, …, N, where K and N denote the numbers of evaluator and noise samples,
respectively. Scores of 1, 0, and − 1 indicate that the noise sample A(B) is more, the same, or less annoying than B(A), respectively.
In addition, to validate the effectiveness of the evaluation score, the data check is implemented before calculating the final noise
annoyance because the evaluator may be distracted in the experiment. The calculation process of noise annoyance is as follows:
(1) AA check: The same sound samples are combined in pairs randomly as AA for the k-th evaluator to assess, as shown by the green
triangles in Fig. 4. Obviously, the correct evaluation score should be “0” because they are the same annoyance; otherwise, a
misjudgment is made by the evaluator. In this experiment, there are 0.5*N samples for AA check. The number of misjudgments of AA
checks is obtained as
∑
errorAA (k) = score(A, A, k) ∕
=0 (17)

9
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

R12 R15

R11 R16
R13

R22
R14

R26
1
R2 R4
2

R25
R23

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6

Fig. 5. Grouping of 80 noise samples through GPCM (Rg1 and Rg2 are the same reference noise samples in group g, g = 1, 2, …, 6).

(2) BA check: A noise pair AB played reversely to the k-th evaluator is called the BA check, as shown by the blue tubes in Fig. 4. This
check is used to measure the evaluation consistency of two noise samples given by the k-th evaluator. The correct evaluation scores for
AB and BA should be identical because they are the same noise samples; otherwise, a misjudgment is made by the evaluator. In this
experiment, there are 0.5*N samples for the BA check. The number of misjudgments of the BA check is obtained as
∑
errorBA (k) = score(B, A, k) ∕
= score(A, B, k) (18)

(3) Misjudgment ratio: Through the data check, the misjudgment ratio of the k-th evaluator is
errorAA (k) + errorBA (k)
error(k) = (19)
NAA + NBA

where error(k) is the misjudgment ratio of the k-th evaluator and NAA and NBA are the numbers of AA checks and BA checks,
respectively. In general, the k-th evaluator with a misjudgment ratio error(k) ≥ 0.3 should be eliminated in the subjective evaluation
[35].
(4) Noise annoyance calculation: The relative annoyance of noise sample A for the k-th evaluator can be calculated using Eq. (19).
The higher the score is, the more annoying the noise sample is.
∑
A− 1 ∑
N
scorek (A) = scorek (A, B) − scorek (B, A) (20)
B =1 B = A +1

The final noise annoyance of noise sample A is the average of the effective evaluator scores as follows:
∑K
∈K * scorek (A)
(21)
k∕
score(A) =
K − length(K*)

where K* is an aggregation in which evaluators do not pass the data check, and length() means calculating the number of data points in
the parentheses.
PCM is effective for small sample sets. However, as the evaluation sample increases, the evaluation time will increase sharply using
the PCM, making the experiment difficult to perform (evaluating 15 noise samples for approximately 30 min and 80 noise samples for
more than 12 h). Therefore, to solve the efficiency problem, an improved method called GPCM is proposed in this paper. Specifically, in
GPCM, the noise data set is divided into several groups for evaluation (the sample number in each group can be different), and through
the correlation inversion of each group of data, the final evaluation results of all samples can be obtained. The method for developing
the relationship between each group predefines the reference noise samples in each group, and this process is presented in Fig. 5.
The reference noise samples serve as the bridge between different noise groups. Their relative scores in different evaluation groups
reflect the changes in evaluation scales within each group. Therefore, a standardized analysis of the evaluation scales of each group can
reconstruct the comprehensive evaluation results of all samples. If we select the reference noise samples in group 1 as the baseline, the
reference noise samples in other groups can be scaled and shifted to the baseline scale according to the following formulas:

10
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

(a) Group 1 (b) Group 2

(c) Group 3 (d) Group 4

(e) Group 5 (f) Group 6

Fig. 6. Misjudgment ratio of subjective evaluation in noise groups 1–6.

Score(Rg1 ) − min{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )}

Score(R11 ) = × ag + bg (22)
max{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )} − min{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )}

11
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Fig. 7. Comprehensive subjective evaluation of TRS noise samples. The dashed line represents the interior TRS noise evaluation with an identical set
of design parameters and different vehicle speeds (40 km/h and 60 km/h).

Score(Rg2 ) − min{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )}

Score(R12 ) = × ag + bg (23)
max{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )} − min{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )}

g g
where the subscript g, g = 2, 3, …, 6, demonstrates the group number, score(R1 ) and score(R2 ) are evaluation scores of the reference
noise samples in group g, a is a scale factor and b is a shift factor. Through Eqs. (21)-(22), the scale factor a and shift factor b in each
group are obtained, and the comprehensive evaluation scores of noise samples in each group can be reconstructed as follows:

Score(Ag ) = (max{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )} − min{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )})×

(24)
Score(R12 ) − bg
+ min{Score(R11 ), Score(R12 )}
ag

where Ag is the noise sample in group g.

Through GPCM, the total evaluation time of the 80 collected TRS noise samples is less than 160 min, which has greatly improved
the evaluation efficiency compared to that of the traditional PCM. According to Eqs. (14)-(18), the data checks of evaluators in noise
groups 1–6 are calculated, and misjudgment ratios are shown in Fig. 6. Evaluator #16 has misjudgment ratios higher than the
threshold of 0.3 in noise groups 1, 3 and 5, and the misjudgment ratios of evaluators #8 and #14 also exceed 0.3 in noise groups 2 and
5, respectively. Therefore, to ensure the accuracy of the evaluation results, the evaluation scores of evaluators #8, #14 and #16 are
eliminated. Thus, there are 19 effective evaluators, and their evaluation scores are processed through Eqs. (19)-(23). Fig. 7 shows the
comprehensive subjective evaluation of each noise sample with different vehicle speeds, where the x-axis represents the evaluation
scores ordered by their reconstructed values, and the y-axis represents the subjective evaluation score. At identical vehicle speeds,
different combinations of design parameters (chassis structure parameters) will cause different interior TRS noise annoyances. A good
set of design parameters will improve the interior TRS sound quality, and vice versa. The subjective evaluations of TRS noise at a
vehicle speed of 60 km/h are more annoying than those at a vehicle speed of 40 km/h, with an evaluation gap of approximately 1 score.
In addition, the subjective evaluations of TRS noise at vehicle speeds of 40 km/h and 60 km/h presented a similar trend.

4.2. Sound quality metrics analysis

The auditory sense of humans shows complex psychoacoustic characteristics due to the complexity of the human auditory system
[36]. In this paper, six psychoacoustic characteristics, loudness, roughness, fluctuation strength, sharpness, AI, and tonality, are
introduced to objectively evaluate the sound quality of vehicle interior TRS noise. The calculation method of these metrics is presented
in [37,38].
Fig. 8 shows the psychoacoustic metrics of vehicle interior TRS noise, which are ordered by the same sequence as that in Fig. 7.
According to Fig. 8(a)-(c), there is a general trend that the loudness, roughness and fluctuation strength increase with the subjective
annoyance. This is because the TRS noise component is distributed in the low and medium frequencies, loudness primarily represents
the noise energy of low frequency, and fluctuation strength and roughness primarily represent the noise low frequency modulation and
medium frequency modulation. In Fig. 8(e), when the subjective annoyance increases, the AI of TRS noise decreases. The sharpness
and tonality present relatively weak correlations with subjective evaluation from Fig. 8(d) and (f). This is because the sharpness focuses
on the high-frequency component of noise and the tonality describes the hierarchy of pitches that TRS noise contains less of. Through
the Pearson correlation analysis, the loudness, roughness and AI have relatively high absolute correlation coefficients (Corr) with the
subjective evaluation, with Corr values of 0.93, 0.86 and − 0.95, respectively. The correlation with subjective annoyance is negative for

12
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

(a) Loudness (b) Roughness

Corr = 0.93 Corr = 0.86

(c) Fluctuation strength (d) Sharpness

Corr = 0.77 Corr = 0.46

(e) AI (f) Tonality

Corr = -0.95 Corr = 0.39

Fig. 8. Psychoacoustic characteristics of TRS noise. The dashed line represents the psychoacoustic metrics of vehicle TRS noise under an identical
set of design parameters and different vehicle speeds (40 km/h and 60 km/h). Corr represents the Pearson correlation coefficient between the
subjective evaluation sound quality metric.

AI and positive for the other psychoacoustic metrics. In addition, as the vehicle speed increases, the psychoacoustic characteristics of
interior TRS noise deteriorate under an identical set of design parameters, which is consistent with the trend of the subjective eval­
uation result.

13
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Pressure of the front tire

Stiffness of the front subframe-body bushing

Stiffness of the front control arm bushing

Sound quality annoyance of
TRS noise at driver’s seat
Stiffness of the front suspension spring stiffness

Sound quality annoyance of

Damping of the front shock absorber
TRS noise at rear-right
passenger’s seat
Pressure of the rear tire

Riding comfort of driver’s

Stiffness of the rear subframe-body bushing seat

Stiffness of the rear control arm bushing

Riding comfort of rear-
right passenger’s seat
Stiffness of the rear suspension spring stiffness

Damping of the rear shock absorber Purelin

Sigmoid

Input layer Hidden layer Output layer

10 nodes 16 nodes 4 nodes

Fig. 9. Structure of the developed neural networks.

5. Optimization the TRS sound quality through the IIAM

5.1. Sound quality approximate model development and contribution analysis

The approximate model technology acts as a proxy for the real physical model to improve the optimization efficiency. In this paper,
a multioutput neural network model is developed for establishing the relationship between the vehicle design parameters and TRS
subjective evaluation. The model inputs are the vehicle design parameters, so 10 nodes are in the input layer. The outputs are the sound
quality annoyance of TRS noise and the riding comfort at the driver’s seat and rear-right passenger’s seat; therefore, 4 nodes are in the
output layer. The sound quality annoyance of TRS noise is considered the optimization objective, while the riding comfort is
considered the constraint condition. The number of hidden layer neurons affects the prediction error and computation time of the
network. Following [39], a 10–16-4 network is selected, as shown in Fig. 9.
According to the subjective evaluation and psychoacoustic metrics analysis, the sound quality of interior TRS noise worsened when
the vehicle speed increased under the same set of design parameters. Therefore, we select the sound and vibration data at a vehicle
speed of 60 km/h for further analysis. Twenty-four samples (60%) and sixteen samples (40%) of the data samples are randomly
selected for training and testing the network model, respectively. To improve the prediction performance, the initial weights and biases
of the neural network model are optimized through the GA method [40]. To reduce the stochastic error, the root mean square error
(RMSE) of 20 trials is selected as the prediction error. The developed neural network model runs in MATLAB 2019a on a mobile
workstation equipped with an Intel (R) Core i7 8550U CPU and 16 GB of memory. Fig. 10 compares the TRS sound quality annoyance
and riding comfort of the tested and predicted values using the developed model. The average error of the predicted values is 4%, and
the running time is 0.16 s. Therefore, the model has high accuracy and efficiency and could be used in the prediction and optimization
of the TRS sound quality of PEVs.
Through the developed neural network, the relative contributions of design parameters to the TRS sound quality annoyance and
riding comfort can be quantified via the weight matrix as follows [41]:
∑m=NH |W I | ∑n=NO |W H |
m =1
∑p=NimI I |
× n=1
∑m=NmjH I |
|Wpm |Wmn
Cij = ( p=1 m=1
) × 100% (25)
∑p=NI ∑m=NH |WimI | ∑n=NO H|
|Wmj
p=1 m =1
∑p=NI I |
× n=1
∑m=NH I |
|Wpm |Wmn
p=1 m=1

14
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 10. Sound quality annoyance and riding comfort comparison of the tested value and predicted value. (a) TRS sound quality annoyance at the
driver’s seat. (b) TRS sound quality annoyance at the rear-right passenger’s seat. (c) Riding comfort of the driver’s seat. (d) Riding comfort of the
rear-right passenger’s seat.

where Cij is the relative contribution of the ith input parameter to the jth output objective. NI , NH and NO are the neuron numbers of the
input, hidden and output layers, respectively. W denotes the weights, and the subscripts I and H denote the input layer and hidden
layer, respectively.
Through Eq. (24), the contributions of each design parameter to the TRS sound quality annoyance and riding comfort are calcu­
lated, as shown in Fig. 11. The ten design parameters refer to different relative contributions to the TRS sound quality annoyance and
riding comfort. The front shock absorber damping and rear control arm bushing stiffness contributed the most and the least to the TRS
sound quality annoyance (the riding comfort) at the driver’s seat, respectively, with values of 19.48% (17.81%) and 2.28% (2.31%)
according to Fig. 11(a) (Fig. 11(c)). In Fig. 11(b) and (d), the rear shock absorber damping is the most significant influencing factor on
the TRS sound quality annoyance (18.89%) and the riding comfort (16.92%) of the rear-right passenger’s seat. However, the pa­
rameters that least affected the TRS sound quality annoyance and the riding comfort at the rear-right passenger’s seat are the front
control arm bushing stiffness and the front subframe-body bushing stiffness, respectively, with values of 3.07% and 3.55%. The pa­
rameters of the front chassis contributed more to the noise and vibration at the driver’s seat, while the parameters of the rear chassis
contributed more to the noise and vibration at the rear-right passenger’s seat. To improve the performance of vehicle TRS sound
quality without reducing the riding comfort, the design parameters should be properly optimized.

5.2. Optimization of the TRS sound quality annoyance

The proposed IIAM is used to optimize the vehicle interior TRS sound quality. According to the vehicle interior sound field, the TRS
sound quality annoyances at the driver’s seat and rear-right passenger’s seat are selected as the design objectives. Based on the transfer
characteristic of the TRS noise, the ten chassis parameters presented in Table 1 are selected as the design parameters. For each design

15
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Pressure of the front tire Pressure of the rear tire

Stiffness of the front subframe-body bushing Stiffness of the rear subframe-body bushing
Stiffness of the front control arm bushing Stiffness of the rear control arm bushing
Stiffness of the front suspension spring Stiffness of the rear suspension spring
Damping of the front shock absorber Damping of the rear shock absorber

Fig. 11. Relative contributions of design parameters to the TRS sound quality annoyance (a) at the driver’s seat and (b) at the rear-right passenger’s
seat and to the riding comfort (c) at the driver’s seat and (d) at the rear-right passenger’s seat.

parameter, the baseline value is used as the midpoint, and the lower bound and upper bound are used as the radii of the feasible
interval. In addition, changing the design parameters of the vehicle chassis will affect the vehicle riding comfort; therefore, the riding
comfort indexes at the driver’s seat and rear-right passenger’s seat are applied as the constraint conditions7. Moreover, because of
measurement and manufacturing errors, the actual values of the parameters are uncertain. Their uncertain levels are distributed in ±
2% ± 10% from the design values according to experience statistics [42]. Therefore, using the interval to describe the uncertain level,
an uncertain optimization model to optimize vehicle TRS sound quality can be formulated:

16
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

(a)

(b) (c)

(d) (e)

Fig. 12. Optimization results of the IIAM with different uncertainties. (a) {u ∈ [0.98, 1.02], α = 0.5, λ = 0.5}. (b) {u ∈ [0.95, 1.05], α = 0.5, λ =
0.5}. (c) {u ∈ [0.90, 1.10], α = 0.5, λ = 0.5}. (d) Distribution of objective midpoints. (e) Feasible area of objectives.

17
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 13. Optimization results of the IIAM with different weighting factors. (a) {u ∈ [0.95, 1.05], α = 0.25, λ = 0.5}. (b) {u ∈ [0.95, 1.05], α = 0.75, λ
= 0.5}. (c) Distribution of objective midpoint. (d) Feasible area of objectives.

min {S1 (X, u), S2 (X, u)}

S1 (X) = αfDc TRS (X, u)/β1 + (1 − α)fDw TRS (X, u)/γ1
S2 (X) = α fPc TRS (X, u)/β2
+ (1 − α)fPw TRS (X, u)/γ2
s. t. P(R1 (X) < [0.3, 0.6])⩾λ
P(R2 (X) < [0.3, 0.6])⩾λ
R1 (X) = [fDc RC (X, u) − fDw RC (X, u), fDc w
RC (X, u) + fD RC (X, u)] (26)
R2 (X) = [fPc RC (X, u) − fPw RC (X, u), c w
fP RC (X, u) + fP RC (X, u)]
X1 ∈ [1.1, 3.3], X2 ∈ [380, 1140], X3 ∈ [220, 660], X4 ∈ [17.5, 52.5]
X5 ∈ [1.25, 3.75], X6 ∈ [1.1, 3.3], X7 ∈ [310, 930], X8 ∈ [245, 735]
X9 ∈ [27.5, 82.5], X10 ∈ [1.0, 3.0]
u = [u1 , u2 , ..., u10 ], u1 = u2 = ... = u10

where S1 and S2 are the interior TRS sound annoyances at the driver’s seat and rear-right passenger’s seat, respectively.f is the
developed neural network model, and the subscripts D_TRS, P_TRS, D_RC and P_RC are the predicted values of TRS sound annoyance
and riding comfort at the driver’s seat and rear-right passenger’s seat, respectively. R1 and R2 are the riding comforts at the driver’s
seat and rear-right passenger’s seat, respectively. X1 , X2 , ⋯, X10 is the design vector, and its subscript denotes the parameter serial
number in Table 1.
The design vector and the bounds of the objective function were optimized and calculated through the GA. The population size,
crossover rate and mutation rate of the GA are set as 50, 0.5 and 0.05, respectively. The stopping criterion is imposed to limit the GA
run to a maximum of 300 generations. According to Eq. (13), β1 , β2 , γ1 and γ 2 can be specified. The uncertainty (u), weighting factor (α)

18
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 14. Optimization results of the IIAM with different satisfactory degrees. (a) {u ∈ [0.95, 1.05], α = 0.5, λ = 0 }. (b) {u ∈ [0.95, 1.05], α = 0. 5, λ
= 1.0}. (c) Distribution of objective midpoint. (d) Feasible area of objectives.

and satisfactory degree (λ) affected the optimization result, and their influences were investigated as follows.
Several optimization models that modify the three parameters were developed. First, we experimentally investigated the effect of
uncertainty. Three sets of u, {[0.98, 1.02], [0.95, 1.05], [0.90, 1.10]}, were selected to reflect the small and large variations in un­
certainty, while the weighting factor and satisfactory degree were set as α = 0.5 and λ = 0.5, respectively, as the baseline. The
optimization results are shown in Fig. 12. “⋅” represents the image point composed of the midpoints of two objective functions. For a
two-objective optimization problem, each “⋅” corresponds to a rectangular box, which represents the feasible area of the objective
function. According to Fig. 12(a)-(c), as the uncertainty of the design parameters increases from 2% to 10%, the uncertainty of the
objective functions increases. From Fig. 12(d) and (e), the variation in parameter uncertainty has a small influence on the Pareto
distribution of objective midpoints and a large influence on the feasible area of objectives, which means that as the level of uncertainty
increases, the robustness of the objective decreases. In addition, there is a trend that the compromised objective midpoints (distributed
in the middle) have larger feasible areas than the biased objective midpoints (distributed on the sides) under identical uncertainties.
This trend illustrates that a fixed uncertainty of design parameters can result in different feasible areas on objective functions.
Then, we experimentally investigated the effect of the weighting factor. Three sets of α:{0.25, 0.50, 0.75} were selected to reflect
the bias on the interval midpoint and radius, while the uncertainty and satisfactory degree were set as u ∈ [0.95, 1.05] and λ = 0.5,
respectively, as the baseline. The other parameters were set identical to those of the model calculated in Fig. 12. The optimization
results are shown in Fig. 13. It is seen that the weighting factor affected the objective midpoint and feasible area from Figs. 13(a), (b)
and 12 (b). According to Fig. 13(c) and (d), as the weighting factor increases, the objective midpoints move to the bottom left, and the
feasible areas increase, i.e., the expectation of the optimal solution improves while the robustness of the optimal solution is reduced,
and vice versa. If we pay more attention to the average sound quality annoyance of TRS noise, a relatively large weighting factor can be
selected; if the consistency of the TRS noise is greater, a relatively small weighting factor is preferred.
Additionally, to investigate the effect of the satisfactory degree, three sets of λ, {0, 0.5, 1.0}, were selected to reflect the constraint

19
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

Table 2
Optimization results of the proposed IIAM and GA method.
Design vector Objectives Constraints

X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, X9, S1 S2 R1 R2

X10

(bar, kN/m, kN/m, kN/m, kNs/ – – (m/s2) (m/s2)

m, bar, kN/m, kN/m, kN/m,
kNs/m)
The original 2.2, 760, 440, 35, 2.5, 2.2, 620, 6.18 6.57 0.39 0.41
status 490, 55, 2.0
Proposed 2.0, 704, 466, 43, 2.2, 2.0, 653, [4.24, 4.82] [4.42, 5.18] [0.36, 0.41] [0.37, 0.43]
method 448, 69, 1.8 Midpoint:4.53Radius: Midpoint:4.80Radius: Midpoint:0.39Radius: Midpoint:0.40Radius:
0.29 0.38 0.03 0.03
GA method 2.1, 686, 480, 39, 2.3, 2.0, 585, 4.64 4.88 0.40 0.37
464, 61, 1.7

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 15. Comparison of TRS sound quality annoyance and riding comfort. TRS sound quality annoyance at (a) the driver’s seat and (b) the rear-right
passenger’s seat. Riding comfort at (c) the driver’s seat and (d) the rear-right passenger’s seat.

level, while the uncertainty and weighting factor were set as u ∈ [0.95, 1.05] and α = 0.5, respectively, as the baseline. The other
parameters were set identical to those of the model calculated in Fig. 12. The optimization results are shown in Fig. 14. As shown in
Figs. 14(a), (b) and 12 (b), the change in satisfactory degree affected the distribution of objective midpoints. According to Fig. 14(c)
and (d), as the satisfactory degree increases, the objective midpoints move to the upper right while the feasible areas change slightly, i.
e., the expectation of the optimal solution decreases, and the robustness of the optimal solution is invariable. This result is reasonable
in practical engineering problems. Based on the above analysis, the uncertainty, weighting factor and satisfactory degree affected the

20
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

(a) (b)

Fig. 16. Comparison of the sound pressure level of the interior TRS noise (a) at the driver’s seat and (b) at the rear-right passenger’s seat.

(a) (b)

Fig. 17. Comparison of psychoacoustic characteristics of TRS noise (a) at the driver’s seat and (b) at the rear-right passenger’s seat.

expectation and robustness of the objective functions from different perspectives. Therefore, these parameters need to be selected
according to the actual situation.
Table 2 shows the optimization result of the proposed IIAM with model parameters of u ∈ [0.95, 1.05], α = 0.5 and λ = 0.5. For
comparison, the optimization model of the conventional GA has been introduced. Except for the uncertainty factor and satisfactory
degree, other parameters of the GA model were set identical to those of the interval analysis model. The calculated optimal result is
presented in Table 2, which shows that the TRS sound quality annoyances at the driver’s seat and rear-right passenger’s seat are 4.64
and 4.91, respectively, without considering the influence of parameter uncertainty and [4.24, 4.82] and [4.42, 5.18], respectively,
when considering the influence of parameter uncertainty. Compared with the original vehicle status, the TRS sound quality annoyance
decreased by more than 1.5 after optimization. These two methods can theoretically improve the TRS sound quality. Then, an
experimental test is implemented to verify the effectiveness of the optimized results.

5.3. Validation and comparison of the propose method

A vehicle test is performed to validate the optimized result of the proposed method in Tab. 2. The PEV interior TRS noise and seat
vibration are recorded, and the working conditions and sensor arrangements are identical to those in Section 3. The collected TRS noise
samples are subjectively evaluated through the GPCM (added in one group of noise datasets), and the riding comforts of the driver’s
seat and rear-right passenger’s seat are calculated, as shown in Fig. 15. According to Fig. 15 (a) and (b), via the GA method, the scores
of TRS sound quality annoyances at the driver’s seat and rear-right passenger’s seat decrease from 6.18 to 5.32 and from 6.57 to 5.74,
respectively. Although the practical TRS sound qualities are improved, these results deviate by nearly 1 score from the theoretical

21
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

optimal values and do not achieve the expected performance. This is because the uncertainty of the structure and dynamic parameters
are not considered, which influences the actual performance of the TRS noise in practice. However, through the proposed IIAM, the
scores of TRS sound quality annoyances at the driver’s seat and rear-right passenger’s seat decrease from 6.18 to 4.48 and from 6.57 to
4.66, respectively. These TRS sound quality annoyances are within the optimized intervals (in Table 2) and better than the optimized
results of the GA method, which shows the accuracy of the proposed method. From Fig. 15(c) and (d), the PEV riding comforts on
different statuses change slightly and meet the design requirement. Although the optimized midpoints of TRS sound quality annoyance
via the IIAM and the GA method are approximate, the IIAM outperforms the GA method in terms of robustness in practical problems.
Fig. 16 compares the interior TRS noise sound pressure levels of different optimization methods. The sound pressure level of the GA
method is reduced primarily above 500 Hz, while that of the IIAM is reduced within 20–3000 Hz. Furthermore, through the IIAM, the
amplitudes of the sound pressure level at both seats are reduced more than those of the GA method. In addition, the psychoacoustic
characteristics of TRS noise using different methods are compared in Fig. 17. The loudness, roughness, fluctuation strength, sharpness
and AI are improved after using the IIAM, with values of 21.15 Sone, 4.78 Asper, 0.47 Vacil, 0.93 Acum and 95% at the driver’s seat
(21.96 Sone, 5.62 Asper, 0.47 Vacil, 0.78 Acum and 93% at the rear-right passenger’s seat). The tonality changes slightly because it has
a weak correlation with the subjective evaluation. Fig. 17 shows that the psychoacoustic characteristics of TRS noise through the IIAM
are better than those of the GA method. This result illustrates that the matching of chassis dynamic parameters and the uncertainty
have great influences on the actual performance of the TRS sound quality of PEVs. Parameter uncertainties must be considered in the
optimization progress, and the proposed IIAM is a promising technique for processing practical uncertainty optimization problems.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, the sound quality of PEV interior TRS noise was evaluated and optimized. A vehicle bench test was implemented to
collect the interior TRS noise of the PEV, and the collected noise samples were objectively and subjectively evaluated through psy­
choacoustic metrics and the proposed GPCM method. The loudness (0.93), roughness (0.86) and AI (-0.95) have high correlations with
the subjective evaluation of TRS noise. The dynamic parameters of suspension shock absorber damping and spring stiffness provided
relatively high contributions to the TRS sound quality annoyance of PEVs. In addition, to optimize the nonlinear and uncertain TRS
noise of PEVs, the IIAM was proposed, which treats the design variables, constraints and objectives as interval vectors for optimization.
The uncertainty (u), weighting factor (α) and satisfactory degree (λ) of the method were investigated, and the sound quality annoyance
of TRS noise was optimized. A comparison between the proposed IIAM and traditional GA method was implemented. It was verified
through a real vehicle experiment that the IIAM outperforms the GA method in terms of accuracy and robustness.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Haibo Huang: Writing - original draft, Software. Xiaorong Huang: Writing - review & editing. Weiping Ding: Validation.
Mingliang Yang: Methodology. Dali Fan: Formal analysis. Jian Pang: Funding acquisition, Supervision.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Chinese National Science Foundation Grant (No. 51905408, No. 51775451), the 2020 Open Fund
of State Key Laboratory of Vehicle NVH and Safety Technology (No. NVHSKL-202013, No. NVHSKL-202014), the Interdisciplinary
Basic Research Project of Southwest Jiaotong University (No. 2682021ZTPY068), the Sichuan Science and Technology Program (No.
2020YFG0211).

References

[1] Z. Li, A. Khajepour, J. Song, A comprehensive review of the key technologies for pure electric vehicles. Energy 182 (2019), 824-839.
[2] Y.S. Wang, T.P. Feng, X.L. Wang, H. Guo, H.Z. Qi, An improved LMS algorithm for active sound-quality control of vehicle interior noise based on auditory
masking effect, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 108 (2018) 292–303, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.02.018.
[3] H.B. Huang, J.H. Wu, X.R. Huang, M.L. Yang, W.P. Ding, The development of a deep neural network and its application to evaluating the interior sound quality
of pure electric vehicles, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 120 (2019) 98–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.09.035.
[4] Sottek, R., & Philippen, B. Separation of airborne and structure-borne tire-road noise based on vehicle interior noise measurements (No. 2010-01-1430). SAE
Technical Paper. https://doi.org/10.4271/2010-01-1430.
[5] F. Ma, J. Chen, J.H. Wu, Three-dimensional acoustic sub-diffraction focusing by coiled metamaterials with strong absorption, J. Mater. Chem. C 7 (17) (2019)
5131–5138, https://doi.org/10.1039/C9TC01243E.
[6] S. Ye, J. Zhang, B. Xu, S. Zhu, J. Xiang, H. Tang, Theoretical investigation of the contributions of the excitation forces to the vibration of an axial piston pump,
Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 129 (2019) 201–217, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.04.032.
[7] H.B. Huang, J.H. Wu, X.R. Huang, M.L. Yang, W.P. Ding, A generalized inverse cascade method to identify and optimize vehicle interior noise sources, J. Sound
Vib. 467 (2020) 115062, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2019.115062.
[8] Y.S. Wang, H. Guo, T. Yuan, L.F. Ma, C. Wang, Electromagnetic noise analysis and optimization for permanent magnet synchronous motor used on electric
vehicles, Engineering Computations. 38 (2) (2021) 699–719, https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-02-2020-0070.

22
H. Huang et al. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 165 (2022) 108300

[9] X. Liao, S. Zheng, Quantification and characterization of the role of subjective preferences on vehicle acceleration sound quality, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 138
(2020) 106549, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.106549.
[10] D.J. Swart, A. Bekker, J. Bienert, The subjective dimensions of sound quality of standard production electric vehicles, Appl. Acoust. 129 (2018) 354–364,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.08.012.
[11] H. Huang, J. Wu, T.C. Lim, M. Yang, W. Ding, Pure electric vehicle nonstationary interior sound quality prediction based on deep CNNs with an adaptable
learning rate tree, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 148 (2021) 107170, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107170.
[12] B.D. Coensel, S. Vanwetswinkel, D. Botteldooren, Effects of natural sounds on the perception of road traffic noise, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 129 (4) (2011) EL148–EL153.
[13] X. Li V. Lim Integrated test system for tyre/road noise-ISO/DIS 11819–2 and AASHTO TP76-12 methods 249 October, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
2389 2395.
[14] P. Kindt, D. Berckmans, F. De Coninck, P. Sas, W. Desmet, Experimental analysis of the structure-borne tyre/road noise due to road discontinuities, Mech. Syst.
Sig. Process. 23 (8) (2009) 2557–2574, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2009.04.005.
[15] C. Ma, Q. Li, Q. Liu, D. Wang, J. Gao, H. Tang, Y. Sun, Sound quality evaluation of noise of hub permanent-magnet synchronous motors for electric vehicles,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 63 (9) (2016) 5663–5673, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2016.2569067.
[16] H.B. Huang, X.R. Huang, J.H. Wu, M.L. Yang, W.P. Ding, Novel method for identifying and diagnosing electric vehicle shock absorber squeak noise based on a
DNN, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 124 (2019) 439–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.01.053.
[17] Y. Fang, H. Chen, T. Zhang, Contribution of acoustic harmonics to sound quality of pure electric powertrains, IET Electr. Power Appl. 12 (6) (2018) 808–814,
https://doi.org/10.1049/elp2.v12.610.1049/iet-epa.2017.0824.
[18] X. Huang, H. Huang, J. Wu, M. Yang, W. Ding, Sound quality prediction and improving of vehicle interior noise based on deep convolutional neural networks,
Expert Syst. Appl. 160 (2020) 113657, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2020.113657.
[19] J. Song, F. Dong, J. Zhao, H. Wang, Z. He, L. Wang, An efficient multiobjective design optimization method for a PMSLM based on an extreme learning machine,
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 66 (2) (2019) 1001–1011, https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.4110.1109/TIE.2018.2835413.
[20] B. Wang, D. Duhamel, On the design and optimization of acoustic network resonators for tire/road noise reduction, Appl. Acoust. 120 (2017) 75–84, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.01.017.
[21] Y.-D. Kim, J.-E. Jeong, J.-S. Park, I.-H. Yang, T.-S. Park, P.B. Muhamad, D.-H. Choi, J.-E. Oh, Optimization of the lower arm of a vehicle suspension system for
road noise reduction by sensitivity analysis, Mech. Mach. Theory 69 (2013) 278–302, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2013.06.010.
[22] J. Wu, Z. Luo, N. Zhang, Y. Zhang, A new uncertain analysis method and its application in vehicle dynamics, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 50 (2015) 659–675,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2014.05.036.
[23] X.J. Jing, A.F. Vakakis, Exploring nonlinear benefits in engineering, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 125 (2019) 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2019.01.059.
[24] N. Gao, Z. Wei, H. Hou, A.O. Krushynska, Design and experimental investigation of V-folded beams with acoustic black hole indentations, The Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America 145 (1) (2019) EL79–EL83.
[25] S. Bi, M. Broggi, M. Beer, The role of the Bhattacharyya distance in stochastic model updating, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 117 (2019) 437–452, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.08.017.
[26] C. Jiang, Z.G. Zhang, Q.F. Zhang, X. Han, H.C. Xie, J. Liu, A new nonlinear interval programming method for uncertain problems with dependent interval
variables, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 238 (1) (2014) 245–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.029.
[27] General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s
Republic of China. GB/T 18697-2002: acoustics - method for measuring vehicle interior noise. Standards Press of China, Beijing, 2002.
[28] General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People’s Republic of China, Standardization Administration of the People’s
Republic of China. GB/T 4970-2009: method of running test - automotive ride comfort. Standards Press of China, Beijing, 2009.
[29] W. Jung, S.J. Elliott, J. Cheer, Local active control of road noise inside a vehicle, Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 121 (2019) 144–157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ymssp.2018.11.003.
[30] Y.S. Wang, H. Guo, T.P. Feng, J. Ju, X.L. Wang, Acoustic behavior prediction for low-frequency sound quality based on finite element method and artificial
neural network, Appl. Acoust. 122 (2017) 62–71, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.02.009.
[31] J.W.R. Meggitt, A.T. Moorhouse, K. Wienen, M. Sturm, A framework for the propagation of uncertainty in Transfer Path Analysis, J. Sound Vib. 483 (2020)
115425, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115425.
[32] F.A.C. Viana, A tutorial on Latin hypercube design of experiments, Qual. Reliab. Eng. Int. 32 (5) (2016) 1975–1985, https://doi.org/10.1002/qre.
v32.510.1002/qre.1924.
[33] S. Ye, J. Zhang, B. Xu, L. Hou, J. Xiang, H. Tang, A theoretical dynamic model to study the vibration response characteristics of an axial piston pump, Mech. Syst.
Sig. Process. 150 (2021) 107237, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2020.107237.
[34] H.B. Huang, R.X. Li, M.L. Yang, T.C. Lim, W.P. Ding, Evaluation of vehicle interior sound quality using a continuous restricted Boltzmann machine-based DBN,
Mech. Syst. Sig. Process. 84 (2017) 245–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2016.07.014.
[35] S.G. Ye, J.H. Zhang, B. Xu, Noise reduction of an axial piston pump by valve plate optimization, Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering 31 (1) (2018) 1–16.
[36] N. Rothen, G. Bartl, A. Franklin, J. Ward, Electrophysiological correlates and psychoacoustic characteristics of hearing-motion synaesthesia, Neuropsychologia
106 (2017) 280–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.08.031.
[37] E. Zwicker, H. Fastl, Psychoacoustics: Facts and models, Vol. 22, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
[38] S.K. Lee, G.H. Lee, J. Back, Development of sound-quality indexes in a car cabin owing to the acoustic characteristics of absorption materials, Appl. Acoust. 143
(2019) 125–140, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2018.09.004.
[39] I.N. da Silva, D. Hernane Spatti, R. Andrade Flauzino, L.H.B. Liboni, S.F. dos Reis Alves, in: Artificial Neural Networks, Springer International Publishing, Cham,
2017, pp. 21–28, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43162-8_2.
[40] E.P. Ijjina, K.M. Chalavadi, Human action recognition using genetic algorithms and convolutional neural networks, Pattern Recogn. 59 (2016) 199–212, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2016.01.012.
[41] R. Mohammadi, H. Eskandarloo, M. Mohammadi, Application of artificial neural network (ANN) for modeling of dyes decolorization by Sn/Zn-TiO2
nanoparticles, Desalin. Water Treat. 55 (7) (2015) 1922–1933, https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.928237.
[42] H.B. Huang, J.H. Wu, X.R. Huang, W.P. Ding, M.L. Yang, A novel interval analysis method to identify and reduce pure electric vehicle structure-borne noise,
J. Sound Vib. 475 (2020) 115258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2020.115258.

23