A framework evaluates vibro-acoustic comfort in special-purpose vehicles, suggesting improved decision-making processes.
The evaluation of vibro-acoustic comfort in vehicle cabins is frequently limited by fragmented treatment of noise and vibration indicators and by the absence of structured, reproducible assessment frameworks. This study proposes an advanced, correlation-driven and process-oriented methodology for vibro-acoustic comfort evaluation, designed to support systematic analysis and decision-making across varying vehicle operating conditions. The proposed framework is formulated as a sequential process comprising experimental data acquisition, signal preprocessing, statistical correlation analysis, and decision-oriented interpretation. The framework was experimentally validated on five special-purpose armored platforms under both stationary and dynamic operating regimes, with repeated measurement trials to ensure robustness. Interior and exterior sound pressure levels, together with vibration-related parameters, are experimentally measured under stationary and dynamic operating regimes. Pearson correlation coefficients are employed to quantify interdependencies among vibro-acoustic variables and identify dominant contributors affecting comfort-related conditions. The results indicate statistically significant correlations between interior noise levels and selected vibration indicators, revealing distinct correlation patterns associated with different operating states. Based on these findings, correlation strength was classified as weak (|r| < 0.3), moderate (0.3 ≤ |r| < 0.6), and strong (|r| ≥ 0.6), enabling structured contributor ranking. The primary contribution of this work consists in elevating correlation analysis from a descriptive statistical technique to a formalized assessment process suitable for integration into predictive modeling and optimization workflows. The framework provides a transferable methodological structure, validated within the investigated vehicle category.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cășeriu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: