This methodology determines permissible stiffness ranges for a mounting system, maximizing flexibility and fulfilling NVH requirements.
Electrification introduces additional NVH (noise, vibration and harshness) challenges during the development of powertrain mounting systems due to high-frequency excitations from the powertrain and the absence of masking effects from the combustion engine. In these frequency ranges, engine mounts can stiffen up to a factor of five due to continuum resonances, reducing their structure-borne sound isolation properties and negatively impacting the customer’s NVH perception. Common hardening factors used during elastomer mount development are therefore limited in terms of their applicable validation frequency range. This study presents a methodology for determining decoupled permissible stiffness ranges for a double-isolated mounting system up to 1500 Hz, based on solution space engineering. Instead of optimizing for a single best design, we seek to maximize solution boxes, resulting in robust stiffness ranges that ensure the fulfillment of the formulated system requirements. These ranges serve as NVH requirements at the component level, derived from the sound pressure level at the seat location. They provide tailored guidelines for mount development, such as geometric design or optimal resonance placement, while simultaneously offering maximum flexibility by spanning the solution space. The integration of machine learning approaches enables the application of large-scale finite-element models within the framework of solution space analysis by reducing the computational time by a factor of 7.19·103. From a design process standpoint, this facilitates frontloading by accelerating the evaluation phase as suppliers can directly benchmark their mounting concepts against the permissible ranges and immediately verify compliance with the defined targets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
López et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: