Power Management Control Design For A Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Power Management Control Design for a Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Ioannis Karountzos
MEng Mechanical Engineering
Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences

Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences
University of Surrey
Project Report
May 2014
Project Supervisor: Dr. Saber Fallah
Abstract
The power demand of a hybrid electric vehicle should be met as efficiently as possible, and
thus the implementation of a power management controller into the vehicle is necessary. The
power management controllers are based on control strategies and are responsible for the
power flow/distribution within the power sources (i.e. the electric motor and the internal
combustion engine) of the hybrid powertrain. In this paper, a double-shaft parallel hybrid
electric vehicle (with a torque coupler) and a real-time rule-based power management
controller, which is based on the thermostat (deterministic) control strategy, are used for the
instantaneous power distribution between the vehicles power sources.
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effectiveness of the thermostat control strategy
in the mentioned hybrid electric vehicle, which follows two test drive cycles. The model of the
vehicle and the control strategy were built in the software MATLAB/Simulink and using the
backward-looking modeling approach, which is mainly used for simplified quasi-static models.
According to this approach, the desired vehicles speed which is based on the given drive cycle
goes back from the vehicle model to the hybrid drive train, in order to find out how each
powertrain component is used.
The simulation results showed what was expected, i.e. a thermostat power management
controller can improve the fuel economy of a vehicle. More analytically, the fuel consumption of
the hybrid vehicle was significantly decreased by 24%-34% in both drive cycles, when
compared to the fuel economy of a conventional vehicle. Also, the batterys state of charge was
maintained between its pre-defined upper and lower limits, during the whole vehicles drive in
both test drive cycles.
ii
Contents
List of Figures............................................................................................................................ v
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... viii
List of Nomenclature .................................................................................................................ix
1.
2.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.
Disadvantages of Conventional Vehicles .................................................................... 1
1.2.
Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) .................................................................................. 3
1.2.1.
Comparison of Conventional, Hybrid Electric and Electric Vehicles ...................... 3
1.2.2.
Economics of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) ..................................................... 5
1.2.3.
Powertrain Configurations of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) .............................. 6
1.2.4.
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) ........................................................... 10
1.2.5.
Power Management ........................................................................................... 10
Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 12

2.1.
2.1.1.
Deterministic Rule-Based Control Strategies...................................................... 13
2.1.2.
Fuzzy Rule-Based Control Strategies ................................................................ 16
2.2.
3.
Rule-Based Control Strategies .................................................................................. 12
Optimization-Based Control Strategies...................................................................... 17
2.2.1.
Global Optimization-Based Control Strategies ................................................... 18
2.2.2.
Real-Time Optimization-Based Control Strategies ............................................. 19
Modelling of Hybrid Electric Vehicle ................................................................................. 21

3.1.
Generic Vehicle Model .............................................................................................. 21
3.1.1.
3.2.
4.
5.
Longitudinal Dynamics of the Vehicle Model ...................................................... 22
Powertrain Model of a Double-Shaft Parallel HEV with Torque Coupler .................... 23
3.2.1.
Overall Gear Ratios and Efficiencies .................................................................. 23
3.2.2.
Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) ...................................................................... 24
3.2.3.
Electric Motor ..................................................................................................... 25
3.2.4.
Battery ............................................................................................................... 26
3.2.5.
Thermostat Controller Strategy .......................................................................... 27
Implementation of Powertrain and Control Strategy in MATLAB/Simulink ........................ 30

4.1.
Vehicle and Powertrain ............................................................................................. 31
4.2.
Power Management Control Strategy........................................................................ 32
4.2.1.
Braking............................................................................................................... 32
4.2.2.
Traction .............................................................................................................. 34
4.2.3.
Battery ............................................................................................................... 38
4.2.4.
Fuel Consumption .............................................................................................. 39
Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 41

5.1.
New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) .......................................................................... 41

iii
5.1.1.
Battery SOC variation and Engine On/Off Operation .......................................... 41
5.1.2.
Engine and Motor Operation .............................................................................. 43
5.1.3.
5.2.
5.2.1.
Battery SOC variation and Engine On/Off Operation .......................................... 46
5.2.2.
Engine and Motor Operation .............................................................................. 48
5.2.3.
5.3.
6.
City Cycle (FTP-75)................................................................................................... 46
Summary .................................................................................................................. 51
Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................ 52

6.1.
Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 52
6.2.
Further Work ............................................................................................................. 52
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 56
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 60
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: UK Demand for Transport Fuels (UK Government Services, 2014) ......................... 2
Figure 1-2: Market share, gasoline hybrid-electric vehicles (in %) (International Council on
Clean Transportation, 2013) ...................................................................................................... 5
Figure 1-3: Single-Shaft Parallel Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014) .................................. 7
Figure 1-4: Double-Shaft Parallel Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014) ................................. 7
Figure 1-5: Series Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014) ........................................................ 8
Figure 1-6: Power-Split Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014) ................................................ 9
Figure 1-7: Compound Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014) ............................................... 10
Figure 2-1: Classification of Power Management Strategies (Bayindir, et al., 2011) ................ 12
Figure 2-2: Classification of Rule-Based Strategies (Bayindir, et al., 2011; Jalil, et al., 1997;
Kim, et al., 2014) ..................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2-3: Classification of Optimization-Based Control Strategies (Bayindir, et al., 2011;
Delprat, et al., 2004) ................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 3-1: Generic Vehicle Model of a Double-Shaft Parallel HEV in a Backward-Looking
Architecture ............................................................................................................................. 21
Figure 3-2: Powertrain Model of a Double-Shaft Parallel HEV with Torque Coupler ................ 23
Figure 3-3: Illustration of Thermostat Controller Strategy ........................................................ 27
Figure 3-4: Flowchart of Thermostat Controller Strategy ......................................................... 29
Figure 4-1: Model of Parallel HEV in Simulink ......................................................................... 30
Figure 4-2: Model of the Vehicle's Longitudinal Dynamics ....................................................... 31
Figure 4-3: Model of the Speed & Toque Calculations............................................................. 31
Figure 4-4: Model of Power Management................................................................................ 32
Figure 4-5: Model of Power Management/Braking ................................................................... 33
Figure 4-6: Model of Power Management/Braking/Negative Torque Check ............................. 33
Figure 4-7: Model of Power Management/Traction .................................................................. 34
Figure 4-8: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC>=SOCmax, for motor-alone propelling
mode ....................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 4-9: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX=0 .............. 35
Figure 4-10: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX=0/Torque
Demand > T_ICE_map, for hybrid propelling mode ................................................................. 36
Figure 4-11: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX=0/Torque
Demand <= T_ICE_map, for battery charge mode .................................................................. 36
v
Figure 4-12: Model of the Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX>0 ...... 37

Figure 4-13: Model of the Power Management/ Traction/ SOC<SOCmax/ CHECK_MAX>0/
SOC<=SOCmin....................................................................................................................... 37
Figure 4-14: Flowchart of Logical Variables ............................................................................. 38
Figure 4-15: Model of Battery .................................................................................................. 39
Figure 4-16: Model of Fuel Consumption................................................................................. 40
Figure 5-1: NEDC drive cycle .................................................................................................. 41
Figure 5-2: Battery SOC Results over NEDC drive cycle ......................................................... 41
Figure 5-3: Engine ON/OFF Operation Results over NEDC drive cycle ................................... 41
Figure 5-4: Torques of Electric Motor and Internal Combustion Engine over NEDC drive cycle
................................................................................................................................................ 43
Figure 5-5: Torque of Electric Motor over NEDC drive cycle .................................................... 43
Figure 5-6: Torque of Internal Combustion Engine over NEDC drive cycle .............................. 44
Figure 5-7: Operating Points of Electric Motor over NEDC drive cycle .................................... 46
Figure 5-8: FTP-75 drive cycle ................................................................................................ 47
Figure 5-9: Battery SOC Results over FTP-75 drive cycle ....................................................... 47
Figure 5-10: Engine ON/OFF Operation Results over FTP-75 drive cycle ............................... 47
Figure 5-11: Torques of Electric Motor and Internal Combustion Engine over FTP-75 drive
cycle ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Figure 5-12: Torque of Electric Motor over FTP-75 drive cycle ................................................ 49
Figure 5-13: Torque of Internal Combustion Engine over FTP-75 drive cycle .......................... 49
Figure 5-14: Operating Points of Electric Motor over FTP-75 drive cycle ................................. 50
Figure A-1: New European Drive Cycle (Fallah, et al., 2014)................................................... 56
Figure A-2: City Cycle (FTP-75) (Fallah, et al., 2014) .............................................................. 56
Figure A-3: ICE Fuel Rate Map (Fallah, et al., 2014) ............................................................... 57
Figure A-4: Internal Combustion Engine Operating Map (Fallah, et al., 2014) ......................... 57
Figure A-5: Electric Motor Operating Map (Fallah, et al., 2014) ............................................... 58
Figure A-6: Electric Motor Efficiency Map (Fallah, et al., 2014) ............................................... 58
Figure A-7: Battery State of Charge and Open-Circuit Voltage Map (Fallah, et al., 2014) ........ 59
Figure B-1: MATLAB Code ...................................................................................................... 64
Figure B-2: Model of Power Management/Braking/Negative Torque Check/Wheel Braking
Torque < Max Regen EM Torque ............................................................................................ 64
vi
Figure B-3: Model of Power Management/Braking/Negative Torque Check/Wheel Braking

Torque >= Max Regen EM Torque .......................................................................................... 64
Figure B-4: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax......................................... 65
Figure
B-5:
Model
of
the
Power
Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX>0/SOC>SOCmin ................................. 65
Figure B-6: Model of Battery/Current Calculation .................................................................... 65
Figure B-7: Model of Battery/Final Current Calculation ............................................................ 66
Figure B-8: Model of Battery/SOC and Voc Calculations ......................................................... 66
vii
List of Tables
Table 1-1: Types of HEVs in terms of degree of hybridization (Fallah, et al., 2014) ................... 3
Table 5-1: Comparison of the vehicle's Fuel Consumption in hybrid and no hybrid drive modes
over the NEDC drive cycle ...................................................................................................... 46
Table 5-2: Comparison of the vehicle's Fuel Consumption in hybrid and no hybrid drive modes
over the FTP-75 drive cycle..................................................................................................... 51
Table B-1: Design Specifications (Fallah, et al., 2014) ............................................................ 60
Table B-2: Table of the Model Browser in Simulink ................................................................. 61
viii
List of Nomenclature
A
Frontal Area of the Vehicle (m2)
Rolling Resistance Coefficient
Theoretical Capacity of Battery (kWh)
Drag Coefficient
DP
Dynamic Programming
EM
Electric Motor
EPA
US Environment Protection Agency
EUDC
Extra Urban Drive Cycle
EV
Electric Vehicle
RR
Rolling Resistance Force (N)
FTP-75
City Drive Cycle
Drive Force (N)
drag
Aerodynamic Resistance Force (N)
ICE Fuel Rate in hybrid mode (liters/second)
ICE Fuel Rate in no hybrid mode (liters/second)
Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2)
HEV
Hybrid Electric Vehicle
IC
Internal Combustion
ICE
Internal Combustion Engine
Battery Current (A)
Vehicle Mass (kg)
NEDC
New European Drive Cycle
PMP
Pontryagins Minimum Principle

ix
Power of EM for Charging the Battery (W)
Power of Electric Motor (W)
Maximum Power of Electric Moto based on EM Operating Map (W)
Power of Internal Combustion Engine (W)
Maximum Power of Internal Combustion Engine based on ICE Operating

Map (W)
Power of the Battery (W)
Power Demand for Vehicle Traction or Braking (W)
Internal Resistance of the Battery (Ohms)
Wheel Radius (m)
Maximum Battery State of Charge (%)
Minimum Battery State of Charge (%)
Battery State of Charge (%)
Torque of Electric Motor (Nm)
Maximum Torque of Electric Motor based on EM Operating Map (Nm)
Torque of Electric Motor defined by the Power Management Controller

(Nm)
Torque of Internal Combustion Engine (Nm)
Maximum Torque of Internal Combustion Engine based on ICE Operating

Map (Nm)
Torque of Internal Combustion Engine defined by the Power Management

Controller (Nm)
Torque Demand for Vehicle Traction (Nm)
Torque for Regeneration (Charging the Battery) (Nm)
Applied Torque to the Vehicle Wheels for Vehicle Traction (Nm)
TC
Torque Coupler
UDC
Urban Drive Cycle

x
Vehicle Speed (m/s)
Open-Circuit Voltage of the Battery (V)
Battery Terminal Voltage (V)
Vehicle Acceleration (m/s2)
Overall Gear Ratio from Wheel to EM
Gear Ratio of Electric Motor Gearbox
Overall Gear Ratio from Wheel to ICE
Gear Ratio of Internal Combustion Engine Gearbox
Gear Ratio of the Torque Coupler-Motor Input
Gear Ratio of the Torque Coupler-Engine Input
Gear Ratio of Differential or Final Drive Ratio
Overall Efficiency of Gears from Wheel to ICE
Efficiency of EM based on its Efficiency Map
Efficiency of Electric Motor Gearbox
Efficiency of Internal Combustion Engine Gearbox
Overall Efficiency of Gears from Wheel to EM
Efficiency of the Torque Coupler-Motor Input
Efficiency of the Torque Coupler-Engine Input
Efficiency of Differential
Density of air (kg/m3)
Rotational Speed of Electric Motor (rad/s)
Rotational Speed of Internal Combustion Engine (rad/s)
Rotational Speed of Vehicle Wheels (rad/s)
xi
1. Introduction
1.1. Disadvantages of Conventional Vehicles
Conventional cars are self-propelled vehicles that use an internal combustion engine for their
propulsion. Most internal combustion engines burn a mixture of fuel (gasoline or diesel) and air
for providing the required power for the vehicles traction. But, as we know these fuel types
(gasoline and diesel) are petroleum products, which are derived from crude oil with the process
of refinement. As a result of this, conventional vehicles have some disadvantages in regard to
their impact on the environment, the public health and the economy.
The main disadvantage of conventional vehicles is their contribution to global warming (the
result of the greenhouse effect), because of their emissions. The internal combustion engines
of these vehicles emit carbon dioxide CO2 and other harmful gases (such as sulfur oxide SO2 &
nitrogen oxide NOx) due to the combustion of fossil fuels (gasoline or diesel). According to the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, the most important greenhouse gas is CO 2
and transportation emissions is the 2nd largest source of CO2, accounting for the 31% of the
total CO2 emissions (United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). The category of
transportation emissions includes all the emissions from cars, airplanes, ships and trains. Also,
it is worth mentioning that the CO2 emissions in the US increased by 10% from 1990 to 2011
and the use of conventional vehicles contributed to this increase, because cars were travelling
more and more miles at that time period (United States Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.).
Moreover, the emissions of SO2 and nitrogen dioxide NOx are the main causes of a serious
environmental problem, which is called acid rain (United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 2012).
Another disadvantage of the conventional vehicles is that the combustion of fossil fuels is never
ideal and the combustion products (such as carbon monoxide CO and unburned fuels) are
harmful to people (Ehsani, et al., 2010). So, it is obvious that conventional vehicles are
responsible for serious environmental and health problems, because they release many
pollutants (such as CO2, CO, NOx & SO2 gases) into the atmosphere, which are harmful to the
environment and toxic to human health.
Furthermore, spark-ignition engines (type of internal combustion engines) are not very efficient,
since their engine efficiency (fuel conversion efficiency) is about 30%, taking into consideration
the typical best values for specific fuel consumption and the typical heating values for
commercial petrol (Ehsani, et al., 2010). This means that the work produced per cycle by the
petrol engine is about 30% of the fuel energy supplied per cycle. But if we consider some other
factors such as mechanical losses (due to transmission and frictions inside the engine), car
accessories (like air conditioner) and driving habits, the efficiency of regular cars is much less
than 30%. At this point, it is worth mentioning that another reason for the poor fuel economy
and efficiency of the regular cars is the dissipation of cars kinetic energy during braking
(especially under urban driving conditions). So, it is clear that the engine efficiency of
conventional vehicles is not at its maximum levels.
Moreover, conventional vehicles affect the energy dependence of a country, since huge
amounts of oil and petroleum products are imported for their final consumption in the transport
sector. As far as the UK is concerned, its overall net import dependence for primary oil was
45% in Q3 2013 (compared to the 42% of the same quarter last year), according to the
Department of Energy & Climate Change (UK Government Services, 2014). In other words,
the net imports of the UK for primary oil were 7.6 million tonnes only in Q3 2013, which is equal
to 45% of the UKs refinery demand (UK Government Services, 2014). Primary oil is not only
1
used in the transport sector, but it is also used for non-energy use and by domestic and
industrial users. In the UK, the final consumption of oil in the transport sector is almost 75% of
the overall final consumption of oil (UK Government Services, 2014). The following Figure 1-1
(UK Government Services, 2014) shows the UK demand for transport fuels (unleaded gasoline,
diesel and aviation fuels) from 2010 to Q3 2013, according to the UK Department of Energy &
Climate Change (UK Government Services, 2014). As we can see in the following Figure,
unleaded gasoline and diesel highly affect the final oil consumption in the transport sector. So,
it is clear that conventional vehicles have a great impact on the energy dependence of UK and
its net imports of oil (including the relevant expenditures), since the consumption of gasoline
and diesel accounts for the biggest part of the overall final consumption of oil.
Figure 1-1: UK Demand for Transport Fuels (UK Government Services, 2014)
The internal combustion engines of conventional vehicles run on non-renewable energy

sources (gasoline and diesel) and as we know the oil reserves will eventually be depleted.
According to the UK Energy Research Centre, the conventional oil production is estimated to
reach its peak point before 2030 or 2020, but there is an extremely high risk for the
productions fall after the peak in 2020 or 2030 (Sorrel, et al., 2009). Moreover, the world needs
to extract conventional oil from new oil resources before the timing of the peak, in order to
delay the fall of oil production (Sorrel, et al., 2009). Also, it is worth mentioning that the rate of
oil production decreases increasingly and more than 60% of the existing capacity may need to
be replaced by 2030, otherwise the oil production may fall after 2030 (Sorrel, et al., 2009). So,
it is clear that there are many uncertainties and risks related to the future of oil production and
consumption, affecting the oil and fuels prices. As a result of this situation, another
disadvantage of conventional vehicles is that their use is significantly affected by these
uncertainties and risks.
To sum up, all the disadvantages associated with the use of conventional vehicles (such as
global warming, pollution and acid rain) are highly related to huge direct and indirect costs,
which may be financial, human or both. For example, the problem of pollution induces direct
and indirect costs, such as health expenses for sick people (indirect costs) and expenses for
replanting forests devastated by acid rain (direct costs). The solution to these problems may be
another type of transportation, which has to be more sustainable, economically viable and it
has to result to cost savings for these problems.
2
1.2. Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)

The first Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) were introduced at Paris Saloon in 1899 and these
vehicles were of parallel and series types (Ehsani, et al., 2010). Of course, other hybrid
vehicles of different types and powertrains have been developed and built since that time.
According to the authors Fallah et al. (2014), a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) is a vehicle that
combines the power outputs of an internal combustion engine and an electric motor for its
propulsion and can recover its kinetic energy using recuperation power systems. In other
words, the traction requirements of such a vehicle are met by two propulsion power sources
(internal combustion engine and electric motor): the main propulsion power source (internal
combustion engine) is responsible for the vehicles propulsion and the secondary one (electric
motor) assists the main one (Fallah, et al., 2014).
Generally speaking, hybrid electric vehicles consist of a power unit (internal combustion
engine), a propulsion system (it transfers the generated power to the wheels), an energy
storage system (battery) and an electric motor (Fallah, et al., 2014). The electric motor not only
provides the additional power for the vehicles propulsion, but it also acts as a generator,
because it regenerates the power during regenerative braking (recuperating the vehicles
kinetic energy). So, hybrid electric vehicles combine the advantages of electric drive with an
internal combustion engine and that is why; these vehicles are more efficient than conventional
vehicles.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that there is not only one type of hybrid electric vehicles and
these vehicles can be categorized in terms of their degree of hybridization. As it can be seen in
Table 1-1 (Fallah, et al., 2014), the functionalities of the three main types of hybrid electric
vehicles (micro-hybrid, mild-hybrid and full-hybrid) are presented. Looking at the same Table,
we see that a micro-hybrid vehicle cannot be fully electrically driven and does not supply any
additional torque when the engine is running, due to the small vehicles electric motor. But, the
small motor of a micro-hybrid vehicle can be used for the functions of engine start/stop and
regenerative braking (Fallah, et al., 2014). On the other hand, a mild-hybrid vehicle contains a
larger electric motor (it can operate as a generator, as well), which is able to provide additional
torque to the engine (approximately 10% of the engines maximum power), but such a vehicle
cannot be fully electrically driven (Fallah, et al., 2014). So, mild-hybrid vehicles can offer the
same functionalities as micro-hybrid vehicles do, with the difference that mild-hybrid vehicles
can assist the engine providing additional torque. Finally, full-hybrid vehicles can offer the same
functionalities as mild-hybrid vehicles do, but full-hybrid vehicles can provide more additional
torque to the engine (at least 40% of the engines maximum power) and can be fully electrically
driven (due to their larger electric motor) (Fallah, et al., 2014).
Table 1-1: Types of HEVs in terms of degree of hybridization (Fallah, et al., 2014)
Engine
Start/Stop
Regenerative
Braking
Motor
Assist
Electric Drive
Micro-hybrid
Yes
Slight
Slight
No
Mild-hybrid
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Full-hybrid
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1.2.1. Comparison of Conventional, Hybrid Electric and Electric Vehicles

Since, the disadvantages of conventional vehicles have been discussed; hybrid electric
vehicles need to be compared with other types of transportation such as electric and
3
conventional vehicles, in order to understand the merits of hybrid electric vehicles. As far as the
comparison between hybrid electric and conventional vehicles is concerned, HEVs offer
enhanced fuel economy and efficiency, lower noise levels (under driving conditions), lower
emission levels, improved engine life and improved brake system life (Fallah, et al., 2014).
Also, it is worth mentioning that the HEVs operating cost is lower than the operating cost of
conventional vehicles (Fallah, et al., 2014), but the maintenance and purchasing costs of HEVs
are higher than those of conventional vehicles. Other advantages of HEVs (in comparison with
conventional vehicles) are the better mileage, the lower oil dependence, the independency of
grid electricity, the regenerative braking system (the HEV batteries are recharged periodically)
and tax benefits.
On the other hand, electric vehicles (EVs) have zero emissions, since they do not have an
internal combustion engine providing the required power for traction. Also, EVs are
independent of oil, since they do not need any fuel (gasoline or diesel) for their propulsion.
Although these characteristics of electric vehicles are beneficial to the environment and people,
they have some limitations regarding the distances that they can travel, their production costs
(due to high battery costs) (Fallah, et al., 2014) and the recharge time and lifetime for their
batteries (it depends on the source of electricity) (Westbrook, 2001). As a result of these, EVs
are very expensive and cannot compete effectively with conventional vehicles (Westbrook,
2001). If the price of EVs was lower than the existing one, then they might not be profitably
built.
It is obvious that HEVs and electric vehicles offer significant advantages over conventional
vehicles. But, the economic efficiency and environmental impact of EVs depend on how their
batteries are charged or on the source of electricity for charging their batteries. In case that
renewable energy sources are used for supplying electricity and charging the EVs batteries,
then EVs offer more advantages than even HEVs do (Granovskii, et al., 2006). Unfortunately, if
more than 50% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels combustion, then HEVs offer
significantly more advantages than EVs and conventional vehicles do (Granovskii, et al., 2006).
However, in case that the electricity that EVs need to charge their batteries is generated on
board, then EVs can compete effectively with the other two types of vehicles (Granovskii, et al.,
2006). For example, if an EV contains a gas turbine, which generates electricity with an
efficiency of about 50%-60%, and a high capacity battery, then the EV can offer more
advantages than even an HEV does (Granovskii, et al., 2006). Therefore, the use of HEVs is a
more feasible solution compared to the EVs use, eliminating the disadvantages of conventional
vehicles use. EVs can be more advantageous than HEVs under some special circumstances
(only if there is on board electricity generation in EVs or if the electricity comes from renewable
sources).
This comparison can be better understood if we go through a case study (Sharma, et al., 2013)
that analyzes the life cycle emissions of conventional vehicles, HEVs and EVs for Australian
driving conditions. According to this analysis (Sharma, et al., 2013), HEVs (in case of class-E
or executive vehicles) were found to have the lowest life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
among all the three types of vehicles, due to their enhanced fuel economy and their small
batteries (compared to the large batteries of EVs). As far as the small vehicles (class-B
vehicles) are concerned, their electric configurations have the highest life cycle emissions, due
to their large batteries (which are charged by the grid electricity) and their consumption, in
contrast to their conventional configurations which have the lowest emissions (Sharma, et al.,
2013). Thus, it can be concluded that hybrid class-E vehicles are the most cost effective in
order to reduce the life cycle emissions in this class, but conventional class-B vehicles are the
most cost effective in order to reduce the life cycle emissions.
Another example that supports the use of HEVs as another type of transportation for
eliminating the disadvantages of conventional vehicles is the comparison between Toyota Prius
and its conventional internal combustion engine Toyota Corolla. According to this analysis, the
hybrid Toyota Prius (which was the first commercial HEV) has better fuel economy, lower
pollutant and carbon dioxide emissions than the Toyota Corolla, as far as the US market is
concerned (Lave & MacLean , 2002). However, this analysis also states that HEVs (like Prius)
can be a cost-effective solution to reducing emissions or improving fuel economy, only if the
fuel prices are high enough so that HEVs are attractive to consumers (Lave & MacLean ,
2002). In other words, the hybrid Toyota Prius offers more advantages than the conventional
Toyota Corolla does in terms of fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, but Prius is not
so attractive to consumers because the gasoline prices are not high enough.
1.2.2. Economics of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)

Since we have discussed the advantages of HEVs, we can have a look at the economics of
HEVs. Nowadays we see that there is an upward trend in sales of hybrid electric vehicles,
because people have started realizing the benefits of hybrid electric vehicles compared to the
characteristics of conventional vehicles. According to the International Council on Clean
Transportation, the hybrid cars account for about 1% of all cars registrations in European Union
(EU), while the petrol and diesel cars account for 55% and 42%, respectively (International
Council on Clean Transportation, 2013). In Figure 1-2 (International Council on Clean
Transportation, 2013), we can see the upward trend in sales of hybrid electric vehicles in
European Union from 2001 to 2012 and it is worth mentioning that the sales of hybrid cars in
Netherlands was 4.5% of total passenger cars sales in 2012 (the highest market share of
hybrid cars in EU) (International Council on Clean Transportation, 2013).
Figure 1-2: Market share, gasoline hybrid-electric vehicles (in %) (International Council on Clean Transportation,
2013)
A case study (Sharma, et al., 2012) that might explain the upward trend of the sales of HEVs is
the technical and financial analysis of conventional, electric and hybrid electric vehicles for the
Australian market. According to this analysis (Sharma, et al., 2012), the parallel HEV was the
most cost effective vehicle type for this market, taking into consideration the uncertainties
which are related to variations in future fuel, battery and electricity prices. Also, as far as the
executive vehicles (class-E vehicles) are concerned, the total cost of ownership of their parallel
hybrid configurations was found to be unchanged to variations in fuel, battery and electricity
prices (Sharma, et al., 2012). This means that HEVs of class-E may have a higher resale value
than conventional vehicles of this class have, because the demand for HEVs increases more
and more and their price remains unchanged to the above mentioned variations.
5
On the other hand, according to the same analysis, it was found that the electric or hybrid
electric configurations of small vehicles (class-B vehicles) were not economically feasible, due
to their low operational energy requirements and high production cost (Sharma, et al., 2012).
As a result of this, conventional vehicles of class-B were the most cost effective vehicle type for
this market, taking into consideration their low lifetime cost (Sharma, et al., 2012).
Another reason that might explain the upward trend of the HEVs sales is the increase in fuels
(gasoline and diesel) prices in the past years. For example, according to the UK Parliament,
both retail prices of gasoline and diesel were increased by about 73% from 2001 to 2012
(Bolton, 2014). Therefore, if we take into consideration the benefits-advantages of HEVs
(compared to EVs and conventional vehicles), the high resale value of HEVs, the cost
effectiveness of HEVs and the increase of fuels prices, then the market share of HEVs has
been reasonably increased from 2001 to 2012 in EU. It is obvious that HEVs will attract more
consumers in the next coming years, since they will help consumers to save money on annual
fuel bills and protect the environment, maintaining a high resale value.
1.2.3. Powertrain Configurations of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)

The powertrain configuration of an HEV is responsible for transmitting the power from the
engine and the motor to the wheels, in order the vehicle to be propelled. The main powertrain
configurations of HEVs are parallel hybrid (single shaft and double shaft), series hybrid, powersplit hybrid and compound hybrid.
1.2.3.1.
Parallel Hybrid Powertrain
This configuration combines the power outputs of the internal combustion engine and the
electric motor (it can be used as a generator when needed), but each power output can be
used independently or together with the other power output (Fallah, et al., 2014). The
combination of both power outputs can be done with the use of mechanical speed-couplers or
torque-couplers. Parallel HEVs are characterized by enhanced efficiency, can travel long
distances and they are suitable for highway driving and cruising (Fallah, et al., 2014). For
example, since this configuration allows to switch between both power outputs, the HEV can be
driven only by the electric motor (fully electric traction mode), when the vehicles speed is very
low without the internal combustion engine working (due to the engines low efficiency at low
vehicles speeds). There are two different types of the parallel hybrid powertrain which depend
on engine characteristics, motor characteristics, vehicles performance specifications and
powertrain component limitations.
1.2.3.1.1.
Single-Shaft Parallel Hybrid Powertrain
Figure 1-3 shows the single-shaft parallel hybrid powertrain in which the engine, the electric
motor and the transmission system are attached to the same shaft and both engine and motor
operate at the same speed (Fallah, et al., 2014). This configuration is easy to control and the
transmission system can be manual, automatic, automated manual or continuously variable
transmission (CVT) (Fallah, et al., 2014). This configuration can be categorized in pretransmission and post-transmission parallel hybrid, depending on the position of the electric
motor. The pre-transmission parallel hybrid configuration has the motor being placed between
the engine & transmission system and being attached to the engine output shaft (Fallah, et al.,
2014). In this configuration, which is mainly selected for mild-hybrid vehicles, both power
sources can provide power to the wheels through the transmission system. The main
advantage of this powertrain is that the generated torque is multiplied through the transmission
system before it is delivered to wheels, making the electric motor more efficient when it assists
the engine during high power demands (Fallah, et al., 2014). The motor can charge the battery,
6
when the vehicle is idling and the vehicle can be propelled only by the electric motor under low
and medium power demands (Fallah, et al., 2014).
Figure 1-3: Single-Shaft Parallel Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014)
On the other hand, the post-transmission parallel configuration has the motor being placed
between the transmission system and final drive (Fallah, et al., 2014). The advantage of this
configuration is that the wasted energy during braking can be recuperated more easily than in
pre-transmission configuration (Fallah, et al., 2014), because the motor is placed close to the
final drive. However, this configuration requires a larger electric motor compared to the pretransmission arrangement (Fallah, et al., 2014) for delivering the required traction forces,
because the torque multiplication is not as high as in pre-transmission arrangement.
1.2.3.1.2.
Double-Shaft Parallel Hybrid Powertrain
Figure 1-4 shows the double-shaft parallel hybrid arrangement in which the engine and the
motor are mounted upon separate axes, providing power to the wheels separately (Fallah, et
al., 2014). As it was mentioned above, the combination of both power outputs can be done with
the use of mechanical torque-couplers or speed-couplers. Also, in the same Figure, we can see
one variation of this powertrain, in which there are two transmission systems (gearbox for the
engine and reduction gears for the motor), which are located between the mechanical coupler
and the motor/engine. The main advantage of this variation is that both the motor and the
engine can operate at their optimum operating conditions, leading to enhanced overall
efficiency, but the structure of this powertrain is expensive and complicated (due to the
integration of two transmission systems) (Fallah, et al., 2014).
Figure 1-4: Double-Shaft Parallel Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014)
Another variation of this powertrain is that there is only one transmission system which is
placed between the mechanical coupler and the drive shaft (Fallah, et al., 2014). So, the
7
transmission system handles both power outputs with the same ratios and this configuration is
mainly used in vehicles with small engine and motor (Fallah, et al., 2014).
The third variation of this powertrain is that each wheel shaft is driven separately, i.e. the
electric motor drives one pair of wheels on one shaft and the engine drives the other pair of
wheels on the other shaft (Fallah, et al., 2014). Both power outputs are combined through the
road surface, i.e. batteries are charged by regenerative braking system or they can be charged
by the engine due to the power transfer through the road (Fallah, et al., 2014). The main
advantage of this configuration, whose structure is simple, is that all wheels are driven, but it
requires lots of space, which could be used for the passengers or luggage and the engine
cannot charge the battery if the vehicle is stopped (Fallah, et al., 2014).
1.2.3.2.
Series Hybrid Powertrain
Figure 1-5 shows the series hybrid powertrain in which the vehicle is driven by the electric
motor, whose batteries are charged by a generator which is driven by a small internal
combustion engine (Fallah, et al., 2014). So, as it can be seen in the following Figure, there is
no direct connection between the engine and the wheels, and the egnine can operate at its
optimum operating conditions for driving the generator. The substantial difference between the
series and parallel configuration is that the motor of the series powertrain must be able to
provide much more power than the motor of the parallel powertrain, because the series
powertrains motor is responsible for the whole vehicles traction (Fallah, et al., 2014). As it was
mentioned above, the motor in parallel powertrain assists the engine for the vehicles
propulsion when needed. The other difference between these two powertrains is that the
transmission system in the parallel powertrain is an expensive multi-gear transmission (for
driving all the wheels), while the transmission system in the series powertrain is much simpler
since its motor can operate at a wide speed range providing high torque (Fallah, et al., 2014).
Also it is worth mentioning that regenerative braking system can counterbalance the power
losses of the series powertrain, because this system recuperates the wasted vehicles kinetic
energy under braking (Fallah, et al., 2014). The series powertrain is characterized by power
losses, because the engines mechanical power is converted to electrical power and then it is
converted again to mechanical power.
Figure 1-5: Series Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014)
1.2.3.3.
Power-Split Hybrid Powertrain
Figure 1-6 shows the power-split (or series-parallel) hybrid powertrain in which the best
characteristics of series and parallel powertrains are combined, leading to a very efficient
hybrid powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014). As it can be seen in the following Figure, in this seriesparallel powertrain, a mechanical link connects the engine to the wheels, in order the wheels to
8
be driven directly by the engine (this is the difference between this powertrain and the series
powertrain) (Fallah, et al., 2014). Also, the power-split powertrain has an additional electric
motor, which operates primarily as a generator (this is the difference between this powertrain
and the parallel powertrain) (Fallah, et al., 2014). As a result of these, there are two power
paths in this powertrain: the power is transferred to the wheels through the mechanical gear
system (one path), but the power is also transferred to the wheels through the motor and the
generator (second path) (Fallah, et al., 2014). Both power outputs are effectively combined
together by the power split device (see Figure 1-6).
Furthermore, the motor and the engine can operate independently or together (like in parallel
powertrain) for providing the required power to the wheels and improving the overall efficiency
of the vehicle. Another advantage of this powertrain is the generation of electricity as the
vehicle is driven at the same time, because the electric motor can operated as a generator
(Fallah, et al., 2014). But, the main advantage of the series-parallel powertrain is the flexibility
of its power control, because the engine can be decoupled from the electric motor if needed
(Fallah, et al., 2014). For example, the motor can help the engine at low speed, delivering the
required power to the wheels (for the vehicles traction) until the engine reaches its optimum
operating conditions. Therefore, the engine of the series-parallel powertrain is smaller, more
efficient and less flexible than a conventional internal combustion engine, but this powertrain is
very expensive and complicated due to its complex power management system (Fallah, et al.,
2014).
Figure 1-6: Power-Split Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014)
1.2.3.4.
Compound Hybrid Powertrain
Figure 1-7 shows the compound hybrid powertrain which consists of one engine and two
electric motors and it is similar to the power-split hybrid powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014). But,
the (bidirectional) functionality of the second electric motor in the compound hybrid powertrain
is different from the (unidirectional) functionality of the second electric motor in the seriesparallel hybrid powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014). This means that the second electric motor in the
compound hybrid powertrain can operate as a generator or traction motor, whilst the second
motor in the series-parallel hybrid powertrain operates only as a generator. As a result of this
difference, the compound hybrid powertrain is characterized by more operating modes than the
power-split hybrid powertrain is (Fallah, et al., 2014). For example, in the compound hybrid
powertrain, the vehicle can be driven by all the available power sources, i.e. one engine and
two electric motors. But, if we compare the compound hybrid powertrain with conventional 4wheel drive vehicles, we see that the powertrain of the conventional 4-wheel drive vehicles is
heavier, more noisy and less fuel-efficient, because of its mechanical components (such as
propeller shaft and differential) (Fallah, et al., 2014).
9
Figure 1-7: Compound Hybrid Powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014)
In Figure 1-7, we can see an example of a compound hybrid powertrain, in which the vehicles
front axle can be driven by the electric motor, whilst the vehicles rear axle can be driven by the
combination of the engine and the second motor. As it can be understood, each axle of the
vehicle can be driven separately, as far as the compound hybrid powertrain is concerned.
There are two different arrangements for this type of hybrid powertrains: in the first
arrangement, the electric motor drives the vehicles front axle, whilst the vehicles rear axle is
driven by the engine and the second motor, and in the second arrangement the opposite
happens (Fallah, et al., 2014).
1.2.4. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)

According to Fallah et al.(2014), plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) is an HEV that utilizes
energy storage devices (such as batteries), which can be fully recharged by connecting their
plug to the grid and not only by the internal recharging systems. Like HEVs, PHEVs can be
built in different powertrains, such as series, parallel or series-parallel hybrid configurations
(Fallah, et al., 2014). As far as the HEVs are concerned, the internal combustion engine is the
primary power source is and the secondary power source is the electricity. But, as far as the
PHEVs are concerned, the primary power source is electricity and the internal combustion
engine is the secondary power source (Fallah, et al., 2014).
The advantages of PHEVs are that they have minimum emission levels (they can have zero
emissions on electricity mode, like battery electric vehicles), they are less dependent on fuels
than HEVs, they have better fuel economy than conventional vehicles and they can travel
longer distances than battery electric vehicles (Fallah, et al., 2014). However, since PHEVs
require larger batteries than HEVs, PHEVs are heavier and more expensive (due to higher
batteries cost) than HEVs (Fallah, et al., 2014).
1.2.5. Power Management

To begin with, in a conventional vehicle and an HEV, there are different types of power sources
and loads, but the power must be properly distributed to the loads. A conventional vehicle has
two kinds of loads (mechanical propulsion & electrical loads) and two kinds of power sources,
which are an IC engine (energy converter) and a battery (electrical energy storage device) (Mi,
et al., 2011). However, in HEVs, there are at least two power sources, but their battery is much
larger than the battery of a conventional vehicle (Mi, et al., 2011). It is worth mentioning that the
load demand (i.e. the required power) and the load characteristics (e.g. the torque & speed
characteristics of mechanical propulsion) vary with time (Mi, et al., 2011). Since there are
several types of power sources in a conventional vehicle or in an HEV, this means that each
power source has different performance, power characteristics and efficiency (Mi, et al., 2011).
10
Therefore, having more than one power sources available, a particular load can be met at a
specific moment by one or more power sources in terms of load performance and power
sources efficiency (Mi, et al., 2011).
More analytically, as we know an internal combustion engine has a better efficiency in a
specific region of its efficiency-torque-speed map, whilst an electric motor is even more efficient
than an IC engine, over a large range in the torque-speed region (Mi, et al., 2011). This means
that the electric motor will be more efficient than the internal combustion engine at a specific
torque-speed point and vice versa. For example, if we assume that an HEV has to be driven at
low speeds for a short distance, the loads demand and the characteristics of the vehicle can be
met by the electric motor (power source) without the engine running, because the motor is
more efficient than the engine at these speed levels. It can be clearly understood that, in an
HEV, there are more drive modes (such as electric drive mode) than in a conventional vehicle,
because the hybrid powertrain consists of more components than the conventional powertrain
does.
This is the main idea for why we need power management, in terms of vehicles performance
and efficiency, because there are several drive modes, power sources and types of loads in an
HEV. The aims of a power management strategy are to maximize the vehicles efficiency and
performance and to minimize the vehicles emissions (Fallah, et al., 2014). These aims can be
achieved by a power management strategy, which is responsible for controlling and
coordinating the power generation, the power flow among the vehicles subsystems and for
managing the power delivery to the vehicles loads (mechanical or electrical), in terms of
vehicles efficiency and performance (Fallah, et al., 2014).
11
2. Literature Review
As it was mentioned in the previous section, HEVs are becoming more and more popular in the
market, which means that lots of research has been conducted into these vehicles regarding
their powertrain architectures (see section 1.2.3) and their power/energy management
techniques. This section provides an overview of the surveys of the proposed power
management strategies and reports the benefits and drawbacks of each power management
strategy. Also, comprehensive descriptions and comparisons of these control strategies are
presented in this section.
Each power management strategy should maximise the vehicles fuel economy, minimise the
vehicles emissions and the cost of the control system, and provide safe and good vehicle
driving performance (Chau & Wong, 2002). Therefore, the power management controller is a
crucial factor of the HEV design process and the overall effectiveness of each strategycontroller is checked against drive cycles, like the New European Driving Cycle (NEDC) and
the US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) Drive Cycles.
As it can be seen in Figure 2-1, the power management strategies can be categorized into the
rule-based control strategies and the optimization-based control strategies (Bayindir, et al.,
2011). Moreover, looking at the same Figure, the rule-based control strategies consist of
deterministic strategies and fuzzy control strategies, while the optimization-control strategies
consist of real-time optimization techniques and global optimization techniques (Bayindir, et al.,
2011). The following subsections provide a more detailed analysis of these control techniques.
Figure 2-1: Classification of Power Management Strategies (Bayindir, et al., 2011)
2.1. Rule-Based Control Strategies

To begin with, rule-based control strategies are simple and suitable for providing real-time
solutions to the power split problem in the hybrid powertrain (Kim, et al., 2012; Ambuhl, et al.,
2010). Moreover, the operation of the rule-based controllers is based on simple rules, which
are independent of any prior knowledge of the drive cycle and these rules are determined
according to human experiences, heuristics, intuition and mathematical models (Bayindir, et al.,
2011). Also, according to other studies (Salmasi, 2007; Bayindir, et al., 2011), the function of
these controllers is based on the principle of the load-levelling, which means that the operating
12
point of the vehicles primary power source is moved as close as possible to its best point (a
pre-set value) for every time point of the vehicle operation.
The concept of the load-levelling can be better explained with an example. Assuming that the
primary power source of an HEV is the engine, i.e. the vehicle is an ICE-dominated HEV, then
the actual engines operating point is moved as close as possible to its most efficient point (at a
given engine speed), if the rule-based controller aims to maximise the vehicles efficiency
(Bayindir, et al., 2011). Moreover, taking into consideration the HEV of this example, if the rulebased controller aims to maximise the vehicles fuel economy, then the actual operating point
of the ICE is moved as close as possible to its best point (Bayindir, et al., 2011).
At this point, it is worth mentioning that in these strategies the best vehicles fuel economy (i.e.
lower fuel consumption) can be achieved at lower ICE torques and lower ICE speeds than the
most optimum/efficient point of the engine (Salmasi, 2007). So, as it can be seen the fuel
consumption of the vehicle depends on the power demand, which is based on the drivers
command for acceleration (Salmasi, 2007). Although, the implementation of rule-based
controllers can lead to low vehicles fuel consumption, such controllers become very sensitive if
the rules are tuned/changed (Ambuhl, et al., 2010). Figure 2-2 shows the categorization of the
rule-based control strategies. The following subsections provide a more detailed analysis of the
various rule-based control strategies.
Figure 2-2: Classification of Rule-Based Strategies (Bayindir, et al., 2011; Jalil, et al., 1997; Kim, et al., 2014)
2.1.1. Deterministic Rule-Based Control Strategies

An article by Bayindir et al. (2011) states that the deterministic rule-based control strategies are
based on deterministic rules, which are defined according to the ICE efficiency, fuel and
emissions maps, the human experiences, the electric motor (EM) efficiency maps, and the
analysis of the power flow/distribution in the hybrid drive train. According to another author,
such controllers are set offline and all of their parameters are implemented via lookup tables
(Salmasi, 2007). As we can see in Figure 2-2, these techniques can be distinguished between
Thermostat Control Strategy, Hybrid Thermostat Control Strategy, Power Follower (Baseline)
Control strategy, Modified Power Follower Control Strategy, Power Split Control Strategy and
State Machine Based Strategy (Jalil, et al., 1997; Bayindir, et al., 2011; Kim, et al., 2014).
13
2.1.1.1.
Thermostat Control Strategy
The thermostat control strategy is the most common and simplest power management strategy
for HEVs and it can be used for real-time control, since it is based on instantaneous
optimisation (Gao, et al., 2009). This control strategy tries to keep the batterys state of charge
(SOC) between its upper and lower pre-defined limits, by turning the engine on and off (Jalil, et
al., 1997; Onea & Babici , 2013). In this strategy, the electric motor is used as the primary
power source and the internal combustion engine is used as the secondary power source,
which assists the electric motor when the power demand is high (Jalil, et al., 1997; Onea &
Babici , 2013). Also, it is worth mentioning that this strategy either operates the engine at its
optimal torque (for a given rotational speed) or not, in order to maximise/optimise the engines
efficiency (Khan, et al., 2005; Jalil, et al., 1997; Onea & Babici , 2013; Gao, et al., 2009).
Moreover, in case that the generated optimal torque by the engine is greater than the torque
demand, then the remaining torque is used by the motor for charging the battery (Khan, et al.,
2005; Jalil, et al., 1997). In this strategy, if the battery SOC reaches its lower pre-defined limit,
the engine turns on and operates at its most optimum/efficient point, but the internal
combustion engine will turn off when the battery SOC reaches its upper pre-defined limit, and
the cycle is repeated (Jalil, et al., 1997). But, according to the work of Onea and Babici (2013),
in this strategy, if the battery SOC is lower than its lower limit and the power demand is higher
than the available power, then both the engine and the electric motor operate simultaneously
(i.e. hybrid propelling drive mode) in order to deliver the required power for the vehicles
traction.
However, the main drawback of the thermostat controller is that it does not adjust the power
flow/distribution in the hybrid powertrain according to the power demand and it does not
operate according to an optimisation criterion, such as the vehicles fuel efficiency (Khan, et al.,
2005). According to the same authors, another drawback of this strategy is that the battery is
characterised by high power losses (due to the heat generated by the battery internal
resistance), because the current that goes back to the battery is usually high, since the
remaining torque generated by the engine is related to this current (Khan, et al., 2005). Also, if
the power demand is high, then the current that will flow from the battery to the electric motor
will also be high leading to high power losses, because the internal resistive losses in the
battery increase dramatically (Kim, et al., 2014).
2.1.1.2.
Power Split Control Strategy
In order to improve the thermostat control strategy, Jalil et al. (1997) proposed a power split
strategy a series HEV, which implies that the internal combustion engine and the battery
operate only at their most efficient points. Like the thermostat control strategy, the power split
control strategy can be used for real-time control, as well (Gao, et al., 2009). Also, the variables
of this strategy are the drivers command for acceleration/deceleration, the battery SOC and
the power demand, which is estimated by a high gain Proportional-Integral (PI) controller that
controls the acceleration of the vehicle (Jalil, et al., 1997). It is worth mentioning that this
strategy uses the same rules as the Thermostat control strategy does, for charging the battery
and thus the batterys charge efficiency was found to be the same in both strategies (Jalil, et
al., 1997).
Moreover, the main difference between the thermostat and the power split strategies is that in
the latter strategy the energy delivered by the battery is reduced, because the engine is only
used whenever it will operate at its most optimum/efficient point (Jalil, et al., 1997). Therefore, it
was found that in the power split strategy the batterys discharge efficiency and the fuel
efficiency were higher by 11.6% & 11.5% respectively in the urban cycle and by 11.8% & 6.4%
14
respectively in the highway cycle, when compared to the thermostat strategy (Jalil, et al.,
1997).
2.1.1.3.
Power Follower (Baseline) Control Strategy
Like the two previously mentioned deterministic strategies (see sections 2.1.1.1 and 2.1.1.2),
the power follower strategy can be used for real-time control, as well (Gao, et al., 2009). In this
strategy, which is very popular, the primary power source is the engine and the electric motor is
the secondary power source, which supplies the additional power that the vehicle needs for its
traction (Salmasi, 2007). According to the same author (Salmasi, 2007), the following rules are
used by the baseline strategy:
a) The electric motor is responsible for vehicles traction, when the vehicle speed is
from zero to a certain value.
b) If the power demand is higher than the power generated by the engine, then the
motor supplies the remaining power.
c) The batteries can be charged by the motor during vehicles braking (regenerative
braking mode).
d) The engine turns off, when the power demand is less than a specific value at the
engines operating speed, in order for the engine to not operate inefficiently.
e) If the battery SOC is lower than its lower limit, then the electric motor charges the
battery using the additional power generated by the engine.
In this strategy, the battery charging and discharging operations are minimised/optimised,
which means that the battery power losses are reduced and the battery life is extended when
compared to the thermostat control strategy (Gao, et al., 2009). However, the main
disadvantage of this strategy is that the engine is usually operated at less efficient points than
its optimum operating points, while in the thermostat strategy the engine is usually operated at
its optimal region (Kim, et al., 2014).
2.1.1.4.
Hybrid Thermostat Control Strategy
In order to improve the thermostat and the power follower control strategies, Kim et al. (2014)
proposed a hybrid thermostat control strategy for a series hybrid bus, which combines the two
previously mentioned strategies. According to the same authors (Kim, et al., 2014), the hybrid
thermostat strategy implies that the engine is operated at its most efficient points and the high
currents in the battery are avoided. It is worth mentioning that this strategy has many
similarities with the power follower strategy, because the engine and the battery are used in a
similar way (Kim, et al., 2014).
In addition, the hybrid thermostat strategy is based on the thermostat strategy, but in the hybrid
thermostat strategy, the battery is always charged by the electric motor/generator when the
battery SOC is between its upper and lower limits (Kim, et al., 2014). Also, according to the
same authors work (Kim, et al., 2014), in the hybrid thermostat strategy if the power demand is
higher than a pre-defined standard/value, then forced generation will start. In other words, if the
battery SOC reduces from its upper limit to its lower limit, the engine will turn off in the
thermostat strategy, but the engine will turn on in the hybrid thermostat strategy due to the
forced generation.
As a result of this, in the hybrid thermostat strategy the fuel economy was improved by 7.78%,
when compared to the thermostat strategy and by 11.28%, when compared to the power
follower strategy (Kim, et al., 2014). Therefore, it can be seen that the hybrid thermostat
strategy overcomes the drawbacks of the thermostat and the power follower strategies, while
taking advantage of their strengths.
15
2.1.1.5.
State Machine Control Strategy
According to the authors Phillips et al. (2000), the state machine strategy is another type of
deterministic rule-based strategies, which determines the vehicles operating mode, using the
following three steps:
1st step: All the possible vehicles operating states have to be defined, e.g. engine
propelling mode or hybrid propelling mode
2nd step: All the possible transitions between the vehicles operating states have to
be defined, according to the driver commands and vehicle operating condition
3rd step: All the possible transitions have to be analysed, in order for a
single/exclusive transition to be guaranteed.
More analytically, in the 1st step of this strategy, all the possible operating states of each
vehicles subsystem (i.e. engine, motor, battery etc.) are defined and combined together, e.g.
engine is turned on and the clutch is engaged, whilst the impossible combinations are
eliminated, e.g. engine is turned on and the clutch is not engaged (Phillips, et al., 2000). As far
as the 2nd step is concerned, the transitions between the operating states depend on system or
subsystems faults and on changes in the driver commands and the vehicles operating
condition (e.g. engine warms up) (Phillips, et al., 2000). However, it is easily understood that all
these transitions should achieve the performance and drivability targets of the vehicle (Phillips,
et al., 2000). The 3rd step implies that single transitions from one operating state to another
should be guaranteed, because transitions to more than one operating states are possible
under the same driver commands and vehicle operating conditions (Phillips, et al., 2000).
Thats why; there are priorities, which are based on driver commands, energy management
and system faults, between all the operating states, so that single transitions are guaranteed
(Phillips, et al., 2000).
For example, assuming that there is an electric motor fault (i.e. subsystem fault) and that the
vehicle was in electric drive mode, the strategy implies the transition from the electric drive
mode to the engine drive mode, if the power demand (based on the driver command) is equal
to the power generated by the engine. But, using the same example, if the power demand was
less than the power generated by the engine (i.e. change in the driver commands), then the
strategy would imply the transition from the electric drive mode to the charge mode, in which
the remaining power generated by the engine would be used by the generator for charging the
battery.
However, Salmasi (2007) questioned the effectiveness of the state machine strategy, because
this strategy has no comparative advantage over the other rule-based strategies. According to
the same author (Salmasi, 2007), the implementation of the state machine strategy may lead to
faulty supervisory control of the power flow in the hybrid powertrain, since this strategy does
not guarantee the optimization of the vehicles performance objectives, i.e. fuel economy and
emissions.
2.1.2. Fuzzy Rule-Based Control Strategies

On the other hand, fuzzy logic controllers are also rule-based controllers, but they use a
decision-making property for providing real-time and suboptimal power split in the hybrid
powertrain (Bayindir, et al., 2011). According to the authors Pouramasad and Montazeri (2008),
fuzzy logic controllers are mainly based on the concept of load-levelling (see section 2.1),
according to which the internal combustion engine is operated at its optimal region and the
motor is used as a load-levelling device. So, as it can be seen, these controllers do not use
deterministic rules, compared to the deterministic controllers. Also, it is worth mentioning that
16
fuzzy logic controllers can be classified into (see Figure 2-2) Conventional Fuzzy Logic
Controllers, Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Controllers and Predictive Fuzzy Logic Controllers (Bayindir,
et al., 2011).
Another benefit of such controllers is that, they do not only optimise the power flow/distribution
within the hybrid powertrain components (i.e. motor, engine and battery), like the deterministic
controllers do, but fuzzy logic controllers optimise the vehicles fuel economy as well (Salman,
et al., 2000). As a result of the improved fuel economy, the vehicles emissions are also
improved and the battery charging pattern is well balanced, when compared to deterministic
controllers (Lee & Sul, 1998).
Moreover, according to the work of Salmasi (2007), fuzzy logic controllers are highly tolerant of
inaccurate measurements and component variations/uncertainties and they are easily
adaptable to component variations/changes, since they can be easily tuned, if necessary. In
other words, such controllers are not sensitive to various disturbances, like the load conditions
or the different drivers commands (Lee & Sul, 1998).Thats why; Bayindir et al. (2011) state
that these controllers is the most logical solution to the problem of the power split in a hybrid
powertrain (for all forms of HEVs), which can be considered as a non-linear, multi-domain and
time-varying problem.
However, fuzzy logic controllers require more computations and they are more time-consuming
when compared to deterministic rule-based controllers (Poursamad & Montazeri, 2008). Also,
according to the same authors work (Poursamad & Montazeri, 2008), the effectiveness of
fuzzy logic controllers can be questioned, because they usually fail to achieve a satisfactory
overall vehicles efficiency if they have been designed based on engineering intuitions. Also,
the vehicles driving performance characteristics are not usually considered by this strategy
(Poursamad & Montazeri, 2008).
2.2. Optimization-Based Control Strategies

As far as the optimization-based controllers are concerned, these controllers aim to minimise
the vehicle fuel consumption and/or emissions, defining the optimal distribution of the power
demand within all the vehicle components, i.e. engine, motor/generator and brakes (Salmasi,
2007; Khan, et al., 2005). More analytically, according to the work of Bayindir et al. (2011), an
optimization-based controller defines the optimal gear ratios and the optimal output torques
for the power sources (i.e. engine and motor), minimising the cost function, which is typically
represented by the vehicles fuel consumption and/or emissions. Also, such controllers take
into consideration the future & current torque demands and all the possible engine-motor
torque pairs that meet the physical & energy limitations of each component, in order to define
the optimal operating points of the vehicles engine and motor, with or without prior knowledge
of the drive cycle (Bayindir, et al., 2011; Khan, et al., 2005).
Optimisation-based controllers are more sophisticated and complicated control methods than
rule-based controllers are, because optimal controllers allow the vehicle to reach its optimum
fuel efficiency. Thats why; optimisation-based strategies require more computations and they
are more time-consuming, when compared to rule-based strategies (Ambuhl, et al., 2010). As
an example of this statement, a recent comparative study conducted by McGehee and Yoon
(2013), on control strategies for a mild HEV (see section 1.2), clearly states that the
optimisation-based control strategy allows the mild HEV to have a better fuel efficiency by
12.5% (with good driving performance) over the EPA drive cycle, when compared to a
deterministic rule-based control strategy. Another example of the superiority of the
optimisation-based controllers over the rule-based controllers is the findings of another study
(Khan, et al., 2005), which clearly state that the implementation of an optimisation-based
17
controller in a parallel HEV reduces the fuel consumption by 55.7% on a highway drive cycle
and by 42.4% on a city drive cycle, when compared to a thermostat rule-based controller.
Figure 2-3 shows the classification of the optimisation-based control strategies. The following
subsections provide a more detailed analysis of the various optimisation-based controllers.
Figure 2-3: Classification of Optimization-Based Control Strategies (Bayindir, et al., 2011; Delprat, et al., 2004)
2.2.1. Global Optimization-Based Control Strategies

As it was previously mentioned, the optimisation-based controllers may operate with or without
prior knowledge of the drive cycle. So, according to Salmasi (2007), if an optimisation-based
controller operates over a fixed/given drive cycle (in other words, with prior knowledge of the
drive cycle), then a global solution can be found by performing global optimisation. The solution
of the global optimisation aims to minimise not only the vehicles fuel consumption and
emissions throughout the given drive cycle, but also the cumulative energy loss throughout this
cycle (Bayindir, et al., 2011). Also, it is worth mentioning that several solutions of global
optimisation have been developed for achieving the performance targets and minimising the
cost function. As it can be seen in Figure 2-3, the global optimisation-based strategies consist
of Linear Programming, Control Theory Approach, Dynamic Programming (DP), Stochastic DP,
Game Theory, Simulated Annealing and Genetic Algorithm (Bayindir, et al., 2011; Delprat, et
al., 2004).
As it was previously mentioned in section 2.1.1.1, the implementation of thermostat rule-based
controllers leads to high battery power losses, but this drawback can be overcome with the
implementation of global optimisation-based controllers that are based on genetic algorithm.
Moreover, according to a comparative study conducted by Amiri et al. (2009) on thermostat
controllers and global optimisation (genetic algorithm) controllers for a series HEV, clearly
states that the latter controllers reduce the vehicles fuel consumption by 8.5% and the battery
energy losses by 33.6%, when compared to thermostat controllers.
However, according to some authors (Salmasi, 2007; Gao, et al., 2009; Perez & Pilotta, 2009;
Sciarretta, et al., 2004; Paganelli, et al., 2000), the global optimisation strategy is not directly
18
applicable for real time power management, since it minimises the cost function (i.e. fuel
consumption, efficiency etc.) using historical data over a given-predetermined drive cycle (i.e.
past and future power demands). In real life, the driving conditions are not known a priori.
Another drawback of the global optimisation controllers is that they are usually used offline and
they are very time-consuming, in order to provide a solution, since they require lots of
computations and all of their parameters should be defined and tuned fine (Delprat, et al.,
2004; Ambuhl, et al., 2010; Gao, et al., 2009; Keulen, et al., 2012; Paganelli, et al., 2000).
Thats why; Delprat et al. (2004) stated that global optimisation controllers are mainly used in
single experiments and short drive cycles. Also, Keulen et al. (2012) stated that rule-based
controllers are usually implemented in most commercial HEVs, because they do not require so
high computational power as the global optimisation-based controllers do, i.e. rule-based
controllers are cheaper.
Nonetheless, Salmasi (2007) and Lin et al. (2003) stated that these controllers can be used for
adjusting, evaluating and analysing other control strategies or they can be used for defining
rules of online implementation (it refers to real-time optimisation-based controllers).
2.2.1.1.
Dynamic Programming Control Strategy
Like the objective of all the global optimisation-based strategies, the objective of the Dynamic
Programming (DP) strategy is to minimise the cost function (i.e. fuel consumption and/or
emissions) and to achieve the performance target of the vehicle, which is the maximisation of
its efficiency (Onea & Babici , 2013). According to the same authors (Onea & Babici , 2013), in
this strategy, if there is extra energy in the hybrid powertrain, then it is saved in the battery,
because when the power demand will be high, the electric motor will be able to supply this
power using the energy saved in the battery. Also, in the DP strategy, the engine is not
operated if the power demand is less than a pre-defined efficiency limit (Onea & Babici , 2013).
In recent studies (Salmasi, 2007; Perez, et al., 2006), it was stated that the dynamic
programming strategy is the most reasonable approach to the problem of the optimal power
split in the hybrid powertrain, because this strategy can easily handle the limitations
(constraints) and the nonlinearity problems and it can provide a global optimal solution as well.
However, according to another comparative study (Lin, et al., 2003), such controllers are not
implemented, because they require lots of computations (leading to high computational time
requirements), but their results over a specific drive cycle can be used for developing and
improving the rules of a deterministic rule-based control strategy. Moreover, according to the
same authors work (Lin, et al., 2003), the improved deterministic rule-based strategy will
become a near-optimal strategy, because its results were found to be very robust, since it
worked really well over other drive cycles, reducing the performance gap of the DP controller
by 50%-70%.
2.2.2. Real-Time Optimization-Based Control Strategies

In contrast with the global optimisation-based controllers, real time optimisation-based
controllers can be used for real-time power management, because they provide local optimum
solution (also known as instantaneous optimum solution), but they do not guarantee global
optimum solution (Salmasi, 2007). Also, as it can be seen in Figure 2-3, the real-time control
strategies consist of Equivalent Fuel Consumption Minimisation Strategy, Decoupling Control
Strategy, Robust Control Strategy, Optimal Predictive Control Strategy, Pontryagins Minimum
Principle (PMP) Strategy and Energy Consumption Minimisation System (ECMS) (Bayindir, et
al., 2011).
19
In addition to the previous statement, a recent comparative study on real-time and global
control strategies (Pontryagins Minimum Principle (PMP) strategy and Dynamic Programming
(DP) strategy, respectively) for a power-split HEV (see section 1.2.3.3), clearly states that a
real-time optimisation controller based on PMP can provide a global optimum solution,
assuming that only the vehicles fuel consumption needs to be minimised (Kim, et al., 2011).
According to the same authors work (Kim, et al., 2011); the difference between the optimal
control results from PMP and DP strategies is almost 1%.
Another difference between the global and real-time optimisation-based controllers is that the
real-time controllers can be easily adapted in real-time varying driving conditions, without prior
knowledge of the drive cycle (Salmasi, 2007; Sciarretta, et al., 2004; Chasse, et al., 2009).
Thats why; Bayindir et al. (2011) and Sciarretta et al. (2004) stated that the cost function of the
real-time controllers depends on variables at the current time, such as instant fuel consumption
and stored electrical energy. Another aspect of the real-time optimisation-based strategies is
that the electrical self-sustainability of the vehicle should be guaranteed, because the vehicles
battery is only charged by the engine and means of regenerative braking and not by an
external device (Sciarretta, et al., 2004).
However, it is worth mentioning that real-time optimisation-based controllers do not always
provide the most optimal solution, when compared to global optimisation-based controllers. As
an example of this statement is the comparative study conducted by Paganelli et al. (2000), on
ECMS real-time and Simulated Annealing (SA) global strategies, which states that the
implementation of ECMS controller reduces the fuel consumption of a parallel HEV by 4%
when compared to a SA controller.
At this point, it is worth comparing a real-time optimisation-based strategy, which is the
Equivalent Fuel Consumption Minimisation Strategy (ECMS), with two deterministic rule-based
strategies, which are the Thermostat Strategy (see section 2.1.1.1) and the Power Follower
Strategy (see section 2.1.1.3). According to a comparative study conducted by Gao et al.
(2009), on these control strategies for a series HEV, the ECMS provides the best fuel economy
over various urban and highway drive cycles, optimising the power distribution/flow between
the engine-generator pack and the battery pack as well. Also, the results that can be obtained
by the implementation of an ECMS controller are very close to the results of a global
optimisation-based controller (Gao, et al., 2009).
Another comparison between a real-time optimisation-based controller (PMP controller) and
two deterministic rule-based controllers (power follower and heuristics controllers) has been
done by Keulen et al. (2012), using a parallel HEV for their simulations. According to the same
authors work (Keulen, et al., 2012), a PMP controller reduces the vehicles fuel consumption
by 7%-16% when compared to the power follower controllers, and by 3% when compared to
the heuristics controller.
20
3. Modelling of Hybrid Electric Vehicle

3.1. Generic Vehicle Model
All the vehicle simulations were performed based on the backward-looking modeling approach,
which first determines the power that the vehicle needs, in order to be propelled for a given
drive cycle. The second step of this modeling approach is the determination of the power
demand for each component of the vehicle powertrain and then the actual power of each
component is calculated, taking into consideration its efficiency. This modeling approach can
only be used for simplified quasi-static models, because it does not take into account the
dynamics of each vehicle component.
The hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), which was used in these simulations, was a double-shaft
parallel hybrid electric vehicle with a mechanical torque-coupler (see section 1.2.3.1.2). Figure
3-1 shows a generic vehicle model of a double-shaft parallel HEV in a backward-looking
architecture. As it can be seen, the desired vehicle speed which is based on the given drive
cycle goes back from the vehicle model to the hybrid drive train. As a result of this, it can be
found out how each powertrain component is used, in order for the vehicle to follow the given
drive cycle. Also, the power management controller is responsible for dealing with the power
distribution and control between all the components of the hybrid drive train, in order for the
vehicle power demand to be satisfied. It is worth mentioning that the power management
controller of these simulations was a thermostat controller, which is actually a rule-based
controller.
Figure 3-1: Generic Vehicle Model of a Double-Shaft Parallel HEV in a Backward-Looking Architecture
At this point, it is worth mentioning that the drive cycles of these simulations were the New
European Drive Cycle (NEDC) and the City Cycle (FTP-75). The NEDC consists of 4 repeated
ECE-15 urban drive cycles (UDC) and one extra-urban drive cycle (EUDC), as it can be seen in
Figure A-1 (Fallah, et al., 2014). The NEDC is modeled as a look-up table indexed by time (in
seconds) and speed (m/s). The average speed of the NEDC is 33.6 km/h, whilst its total time is
1,180 seconds, its total distance is 11.017km (Barlow, et al., 2009) and its maximum speed is
120 km/h (Fallah, et al., 2014). The UDC represents the driving conditions of big European
cities and it is characterized by a maximum speed of 50 km/h and low engine loads. On the
other hand, the EUDC represents the highway (or extra-urban) driving conditions and it is
characterized by higher speeds and higher engine loads than the UDC. Generally, the NEDC is
characterized by several constant speed periods, several idling stops and low
accelerations/decelerations.
21
Also, the FTP-75 represents a city drive cycle, which consists of three phases, which are a cold
start phase, a transient phase and a hot- start phase, as it can be seen in Figure A-2 (Fallah, et
al., 2014). This drive cycle is characterized by an average speed of 31.5km/h, a maximum
speed of 91.2 km/h, a total distance of 17.77km and a duration of 1874 seconds (Fallah, et al.,
2014).
3.1.1. Longitudinal Dynamics of the Vehicle Model

As far as the longitudinal dynamics and planar kinematics of the vehicle are concerned, the
drive force (), the aerodynamic resistance force () and the rolling resistance force
are only considered. It is worth mentioning that the effects of the suspension to the vehicle
dynamics have not been taken into consideration.
To begin with, the summation of all forces () acting on the vehicle can be given by
() = () = () ()
. 3.1
where m is the vehicle mass (kg) and () is the acceleration of the vehicle, which is the
second derivative of the vehicle position () with respect to time (Fallah, et al., 2014).
The drive force () can be given by
() = () =
()
. 3.2
where is the vehicle acceleration (m/s2) and it is equal to the derivative of the vehicle velocity
() with respect to time. The vehicle velocity () can be obtained by the drive cycle in m/s.
The aerodynamic force () can be given by
1
() = ()2
2
. 3.3
where is the air density (kg/m3), A is the frontal area of the vehicle (m2) and is the
drag coefficient (Fallah, et al., 2014).
The rolling resistance force can be obtained by
=
. 3.4
where is the rolling resistance coefficient and g is the gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
(Fallah, et al., 2014).
The vehicle needs some power (), in order to overcome the rolling resistance and
aerodynamic drag forces and to follow the given drive cycle. In other words, this power
() is required for vehicle traction and it can be obtained by
() = ( () + () + ) ()
. 3.5
However, it is worth mentioning that () can be the braking power that the vehicle nees
in order to decelerate. Also, the torque required () for vehicle traction, which is equal
to the applied torque to the vehicle wheels (), can be obtained by
22
() = () =
()
()
. 3.6
where is the rotational speed of the vehicle wheels (rad/s) and it can be obtained by
() =
()
. 3.7
where is the wheel radius (m).

Finally, it is worth mentioning that there is no gradient resistance force acting on the vehicle,
because it is assumed that the whole simulation is performed with zero road slope angle.
3.2. Powertrain Model of a Double-Shaft Parallel HEV with Torque Coupler

Figure 3-2 shows the configuration of a double-shaft parallel HEV with a torque coupler that
was used in these simulations. As it can be seen, there are two transmission systems, one is
located between the internal combustion engine (ICE) and the torque coupler (TC) and the
other one is located between the electric motor (EM) and the torque coupler (TC). More
analytically, there is a single reduction gear between the EM and TC, which means that the
high torque characteristics of the EM can be exploited at low speeds. On the other hand, there
is a three-gear transmission system between the ICE and TC, in order for the ICE to operate at
its optimal region. The purpose of each transmission system is to amplify the torque, which is
delivered from each power source to the wheels, maintaining the operation of each power
source at its optimal region.
Figure 3-2: Powertrain Model of a Double-Shaft Parallel HEV with Torque Coupler
3.2.1. Overall Gear Ratios and Efficiencies

The overall gear ratio from the wheel to the ICE () can be obtained by
() = _ () _
. 3.8
23
where _ () is the gear ratio of ICE gearbox, which is not constant, because it changes
according to the vehicle speed. Also, _ is the gear ratio between the TC and ICE input
and is the gear ratio of the differential or the final drive ratio.
Similarly, the overall gear ratio from the wheel to the EM can be obtained by
= _ _
. 3.9
where _ is the gear ratio of EM single reduction gear, which is constant, because there is a
single reduction gear unit. Also, _ is the gear ratio between the TC and EM input.
The overall efficiency of gears from the wheel to the ICE can be obtained by
= _ _
. 3.10
where _ is the efficiency of the ICE gearbox, _ is the efficiency between the TC and
ICE input and is the efficiency of the differential.
Similarly, the overall efficiency of gears from the wheel to the EM can be obtained by
= _ _
. 3.11
where _ is the efficiency of the EM single reduction gear and _ is the efficiency
between the TC and ICE input.
3.2.2. Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)

The rotational speed of the ICE () can be obtained by
() =
()
()
. 3.12
As it can be seen, the rotational speed of the engine () depends on the gear ratio of the
engine gearbox () and the rotational speed of the wheel (), which depend on the
vehicle speed (based on the given drive cycle).
Moreover, the torque of the ICE () can be obtained by
() =
()
()
. 3.13
More analytically, the engine torque () is based on the whole torque demand (or wheel
torque) (), which is required for the vehicle traction in no hybrid drive mode. So, the engine
] in no hybrid mode can be found in [
fuel rate [
] with the use of the ICE
fuel rate map (Figure A-3 of Appendix) (Fallah, et al., 2014), taking into consideration ()
and (). The engine fuel rate map is modeled as a look-up table indexed by () and
(). The combined fuel consumption of the vehicle (in no hybrid mode) for NEDC can be
obtained in [100] by
24
11.017
100
. 3.14
where the total distance of NEDC is 11.017km.

However, the engine torque _ () can be obtained by the ICE operating map (Figure A-4
of Appendix) (Fallah, et al., 2014), which is modeled as a look-up table indexed by () and
_ (). This operating map shows the maximum torque that the engine can provide for a
given rotational speed (). The _ () is used by the power management controller for
the vehicle traction (not for vehicle braking), because the thermostat control strategy either
operates the engine (as a secondary power source) at its optimal region or not (Ehsani, et al.,
2010).
The engine torque _ () is defined by the power management controller and it is the
engine torque required for the vehicle traction in hybrid drive mode. So, the engine fuel rate
] in hybrid mode can be found as the engine fuel rate [ ] in no hybrid mode.
[
The combined fuel consumption of the vehicle (in hybrid mode) for NEDC can be obtained in
[100] by
11.017
100
. 3.15
3.2.3. Electric Motor

The rotational speed of the EM () can be obtained by
() =
()
. 3.16
So, the rotational speed of the motor () depends on the rotational speed of the wheel
(), which depends on the vehicle speed (based on the given drive cycle).
Moreover, the torque of the EM, (), can be obtained by
() =
()

. 3.17
More analytically, the motor torque () is based on the whole torque demand (or wheel
torque) (), which is required for the vehicle traction. The () is used by the power
management controller, because the thermostat control strategy uses the motor as the primary
power source for the vehicle traction (Ehsani, et al., 2010).
Also, the motor torque _ () can be obtained by the EM operating map (see Figure A-5)
(Fallah, et al., 2014), which is modeled as a look-up table indexed by () and _ ().
This operating map shows the maximum torque that the motor can provide either for charging
the battery or for the vehicle traction, at a given rotational speed (). The _ () is
used by the thermostat controller for charging the battery, during the vehicle braking, when the
_ () is lower than or equal to () (Ehsani, et al., 2010).
At this point, it is worth mentioning that the motor power, , (), which charges the battery,
can be obtained by
25
, () = () ()
. 3.18
where is the motor efficiency and () is the torque generated by the EM that charges
the battery during the vehicle traction or braking. The can be obtained by the EM efficiency
map (see Figure A-6) (Fallah, et al., 2014), which is modeled as a look-up table indexed by
() and (). The () may either be provided by the EM, which uses the
remaining power of ICE (when the power demand is less than the power that the engine can
provide operating at its optimal region) during the vehicle traction, or be provided by the EM
during the vehicle braking (Ehsani, et al., 2010).
3.2.4. Battery
For this research, a simplified model of battery is used and the instantaneous battery State of
Charge () can be obtained (as a percentage of the battery capacity) by
1
() = (0 ) [
()]
, 0
. 3.19
where (0 ) is the initial state of charge of the battery, , is the theoretical capacity of
the battery and () is the batter current (Fallah, et al., 2014). Also, the battery current is the
rate of charge, which can be obtained by (Fallah, et al., 2014)
() =
()
,
. 3.20
Also, the rate of change of the for a time interval can be obtained by
, () , ()2 4 , ()
2 , ,
. 3.21
where , is the open circuit voltage of the battery, , is the internal resistance of the
battery and is the power of the battery, which is equal to , (Fallah, et al., 2014).
The , () is a function of the battery and it is modeled using a look-up table (see
Figure A-7) indexed by the , () and the (Fallah, et al., 2014). Also, it is worth
mentioning that the battery terminal voltage , () can be obtained by (Fallah, et al., 2014)
, () =
, () , ()2 4 , ()
2
. 3.22
So, combining Equations 3.20 and 3.21, the battery current () can be obtained by the
following equation
() =
, (), ()2 4 , ()
2 , ,
. 3.23
Moreover, it is worth mentioning that if the battery current () is positive, the battery is
charged, but if the battery current () is negative, the battery is discharged.
26
3.2.5. Thermostat Controller Strategy

The thermostat controller strategy (also known as engine on-off control strategy) is a
deterministic rule-based method that operates on a set of rules, which are based on
operating/efficiency maps of ICE & EM, ICE fuel map, human experiences and the analysis of
the power flow/distribution in the hybrid powertrain (Fallah, et al., 2014). According to this
strategy, the primary power source is the EM and the secondary power source is the ICE,
which either operates at its optimal region or not (Ehsani, et al., 2010). The objective of the
thermostat controller is to maintain the battery within its pre-set upper and lower limits
(, , , respectively), taking into consideration the torque demand for the
vehicle traction and braking (Fallah, et al., 2014).
At this point, it is worth mentioning that if the is greater than or equal to its maximum
limit [, ], then the engine is off and the EM provides all the required power for the
vehicle traction, until the reaches its lower limit [, ] when the IC engine will
turn on. The IC engine will continue its operation, until the to reach its upper limit
, , when the IC engine will turn off. Figure 3-3 shows an illustration for the operation of
the thermostat control strategy and how this operation cycle is repeated.
Figure 3-3: Illustration of Thermostat Controller Strategy
For this research, the following rules have been defined for the power management controller
of the double-shaft parallel HEV:
A) Traction
a. If the battery state of charge [ ] is greater than or equal to its upper limit
[, ], then the IC engine turns off and the electric motor provides all the
required power for the vehicle traction (Fallah, et al., 2014). In other words, the
drive train operates on a motor-alone propelling mode, in which the battery
provides all the required power to the motor for propelling the vehicle, i.e.
= 0
=
where is the power generated by the ICE and is the power generated
by the EM.
27
b. If the battery state of charge [ ] is lower than or equal to its lower limit
[, ], then the IC engine turns on and there are two possible options:
i. If the power demand is greater than the power that the IC engine can
provide (operating at its optimal region), then the electric motor provides
the remaining required power for the vehicle traction (Fallah, et al.,
2014). In other words, the drive train operates on a hybrid propelling
mode, in which both the IC engine and electric motor must deliver all the
power demand to the wheels for the vehicle propulsion, i.e.
= _
where _ is the maximum power that the ICE can generate (based
on its operating map) and operating at its optimal region.
ii. Otherwise, if the power demand is lower than the power that the IC
engine can provide (operating at its optimal region), the electric motor
uses the remaining power, which is provided by the IC engine, for
charging the battery (Fallah, et al., 2014). So, the drive train operates on
battery charge mode, in which the electric motor operates as a generator
for charging the battery, using the remaining power of the IC engine, i.e.
= [_ ]
, =
B) Braking
a. If the braking power demand is less than the maximum power that the
motor can regenerate _, then all the braking power is used for charging
the battery (Fallah, et al., 2014). So, the drive train operates on regenerativealone brake mode, in which the IC engine is off and the electric motor produces
all the required braking power, because the EM operates as a generator, i.e.
, =
b. If the braking power demand is greater than or equal to the maximum
power that the motor can regenerate _, then all the braking power that the
motor can produce is used for charging the battery and the remaining required
braking power is produced by friction brakes (Fallah, et al., 2014).
In other words, the drive train operates on hybrid brake mode, in which the EM
produces its maximum braking power, since it operates as a generator, and the
mechanical friction brakes are applied, i.e.
, = _
= ,
All the above rules of the thermostat controller strategy are summarized in the following
flowchart, which is illustrated in Figure 3-4.
28
Figure 3-4: Flowchart of Thermostat Controller Strategy
29
4. Implementation of Powertrain and Control Strategy in MATLAB/Simulink

The HEV model and the thermostat control strategy were built in MATLAB Simulink (see Figure
4-1). As it was mentioned above, a double shaft parallel HEV with torque coupler and a
thermostat rule-based controller (see sections 3.2 and 3.2.5 respectively) were chosen for
these simulations. Also, all the simulations were run using an ode-3 (Bogacki-Shampine) fixedstep solver with a fixed step-size of 0.001. As it was mentioned in section 3.1, all the vehicle
simulations were performed based on the backward-looking modeling approach. The MATLAB
code and the used vehicle specifications can be seen in Figure B-1 and Table B-1,
respectively.
Figure 4-1 shows the block diagram of the complete powertrain, which is studied in this paper.
As it can be seen, the only input to this model is the data of the drive cycle, which is the desired
speed in m/s that the vehicle should reach at every instant of the cycle. Also, the outputs of this
model are the motor torque (Torque_EM_out), the engine torque (Torque_ICE_out), the battery
state of charge (SOC) and the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid drive mode
(FC_Hybrid_liter_100km) and the vehicles fuel consumption in no hybrid drive mode
(FC_no_Hybrid_liter_100km). The whole model browser can be seen in Table B-2.
Figure 4-1: Model of Parallel HEV in Simulink
30
4.1. Vehicle and Powertrain

The desired speed is used by the block-subsystem Vehicle (see Figure 4-1), which is
responsible for the calculations of the vehicles torque demand (Wheel Torque in Nm), the
rotational speed of the vehicles wheel (Wheel Speed in rad/s) and the overall gear ration from
wheel to ICE (Overall_Gear_Ratio_ICE). All these calculations are executed using the
Equations 3.2 3.8 of sections 3.1.1 and 3.2.1, as it can be seen in Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-2: Model of the Vehicle's Longitudinal Dynamics
Also, looking at the same Figure a lookup table (indexed by the vehicles desired speed and the
gear ratios of the ICE gearbox) is used for finding the gear ratio of the ICE gearbox for any
vehicles speed. Moreover, a switch block is used, because the wheel torque should be equal
to zero, when the vehicle is stopped, i.e. when its desired speed is equal to zero.
The outputs of the block-subsystem Vehicle, the overall efficiency of gears from wheel to ICE
and the overall gear ratio from wheel to EM are inputted into the block-subsystem Speed &
Torque Calculations (see the red block of Figure 4-1 above). Figure 4-3 shows the diagram of
the block-subsystem Speed & Torque Calculations that is responsible for the calculation of
the rotational speeds of the motor and the engine (W_EM and W_ICE, respectively) and the
torque of the engine in no hybrid drive mode (T_ICE_no_hybrid), which is required for the
vehicles traction. All these calculations are based on the Equations 3.12, 3.13 and 3.16 of
sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3. Also, the EM and ICE operating maps (implemented as lookup tables
- Figure A-4 & Figure A-5) are used for the estimation of the maximum motor and engine
torques at any given rotational speed (Torque_EM_map and Torque_ICE_map, respectively).
Figure 4-3: Model of the Speed & Toque Calculations
31
4.2. Power Management Control Strategy

The thermostat control strategy was implemented in the block-subsystem Power
Management (as it can be seen in green colour and in Figure 4-1 above), whose inputs are the
outputs of the block-subsystem Speed & Torque Calculations (W_ICE and W_EM), the
vehicles torque demand, the overall gear ratio from wheel to engine (both of them are outputs
of the block-subsystem Vehicle) and the battery SOC. The outputs of the power management
controller are the torques of the engine and the motor (T_ICE and T_EM, respectively) and the
torque that is used for charging the battery, under regenerative braking or when there is
excessive torque generated by the engine (T_regen).
The first step of the power management controller is the identification of the vehicles drive
mode, according to the torque demand (see Figure 4-4). In other words, if the torque demand is
positive, then the vehicles acceleration is also positive and the vehicle is on traction. But, if the
torque demand is negative, then the vehicles acceleration is negative and the vehicle is
decelerating or braking.
Figure 4-4: Model of Power Management
4.2.1. Braking
In this section, the operation of the thermostat controller is discussed, when the torque demand
is negative and the vehicle is decelerating or braking. Figure 4-5 shows the subsystem
Braking of the block Power Management. As it can be seen, when the vehicle is braking, the
controller tries to identify if the battery SOC is lower than its maximum value or not. If the
battery SOC is greater than or equal to its upper limit, then all the torques of the regeneration
process, the engine and the motor should be equal to zero, because the battery does not have
to be charged in that case and the battery SOC cannot be greater than its maximum value.
32
Figure 4-5: Model of Power Management/Braking
But, if the battery SOC is lower than its maximum value, then the power management controller
calculates the torque generated by the regeneration process (Torque_regen) and sets the
torques of the engine and the motor (Torque_ICE and Torque_EM, respectively) equal to zero
(see Figure 4-6). After that, the thermostat controller needs to identify if the braking torque
demand is greater than the maximum torque that the motor can generate (according to the
motor operating map - Figure A-5). Using the Equation 3.17 of section 3.2.3, the torque of the
motor that is based on the braking torque demand can be obtained.
Figure 4-6: Model of Power Management/Braking/Negative Torque Check
As a result of this and taking into consideration the rules of the thermostat control strategy (see
Figure 3-4), if the braking torque demand is less than the maximum torque that the motor can
generate, then all the braking torque demand will be used by the motor for charging the battery
33
(see Figure B-2), since the vehicle will be on regenerative-alone brake mode. However, if the
braking torque demand is greater than or equal to the maximum torque that the motor can
generate, then the maximum torque of the motor will be used for charging the battery (see
Figure B-3), since the vehicle will be on hybrid brake mode (the remaining braking torque
demand will be provided by the mechanical friction brakes).
4.2.2. Traction
In this section, the operation of the power management controller is discussed, when the
torque demand is positive and the vehicle is accelerating. Figure 4-7 shows the subsystem
Traction of the block Power Management. As it can be seen, when the vehicle is on traction,
the controller tries to identify if the battery SOC is lower than its maximum value or not.
According to the rules of the thermostat control strategy (see Figure 3-4), if the battery SOC is
greater than or equal to its upper limit, then the vehicle is on motor-alone propelling mode and
the engine is switched off. Otherwise, if the battery SOC moves from its minimum value to its
maximum value, the engine is switched on and the vehicle can be on hybrid propelling mode or
battery charge mode, depending on the torque demand and the torque generated by the
engine.
Figure 4-7: Model of Power Management/Traction
As it can be seen in Figure 4-8, if the battery SOC is greater than or equal to its maximum
value, only the motor is used for the vehicles traction and the torque of the engine is equal to
zero, since the engine is switched off. The torque of the motor can be obtained using the
Equation 3.17 of section 3.2.3. Also, the torque generated by the regeneration process (for
charging the battery) is equal to zero, since there is no braking and the engine is not operated.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that a logical variable (CHECK_MAX) is used by the
controller for defining if the battery SOC has reached its maximum value or not. In the
beginning of the drive cycle, this logical variable is equal to zero, but when the battery SOC is
34
greater than or equal to its maximum value, then this logical variable will be equal to 1 (see
Figure 4-8).
Figure 4-8: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC>=SOCmax, for motor-alone propelling mode
Moreover, if the battery SOC is lower than its maximum value, the power management
controller needs to identify if the vehicle should be on motor-alone propelling mode or not,
using the logical variable CHECK_MAX (see Figure B-4). As it was mentioned in section 3.2.5,
if the battery SOC is equal to its minimum value, the engine is switched on and the battery is
charged, until the battery SOC reaches its maximum value. Since the battery SOC has reached
its maximum value, the engine is switched off and the vehicle is on motor-alone propelling
mode, until the battery SOC reaches its minimum value, when the engine will be switched on
again. This is how the operation cycle of the thermostat control strategy is repeated (see Figure
3-3).
So, if the logical variable CHECK_MAX is equal to zero, that means that battery SOC has
never reached its maximum value before and the vehicle should not be on motor-alone
propelling mode, until the battery SOC reaches its maximum value. In other words, the engine
should be switched on and the battery should be charged. In that case (see Figure 4-9), the
controller needs to define if the torque demand is greater than the maximum torque that the
ICE can provide (according to the engine operating map - Figure A-4). Using the Equation 3.13
of section 3.2.2, the torque of the engine that is based on the torque demand can be obtained.
Figure 4-9: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX=0
35
Figure 4-10 shows that if the torque demand is greater than the maximum torque that the
engine can generate, then the vehicle is on hybrid propelling mode. According to the rules of
the thermostat control strategy (see Figure 3-4), the engine delivers its maximum torque and
the remaining torque demand is provided by the motor. Also, the battery is not charged in this
drive mode, i.e. the relevant torque (Torque_regen) is equal to zero.
Figure 4-10: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX=0/Torque Demand >

T_ICE_map, for hybrid propelling mode
Figure 4-11 shows that if the torque demand is lower than or equal to the maximum torque that
the engine can generate, then the vehicle is on battery charge mode. According to the rules of
the thermostat control strategy (see Figure 3-4), the engine provides all the required torque
demand for the vehicles traction and the electric motor operates as a generator for charging
the battery, using the remaining power of the IC engine. Thats why; the torque of the motor for
the vehicles traction (Torque_EM) is equal to zero and the torque for charging the battery
(Torque_regen) is equal to the difference between the torque demand and the maximum torque
that the engine can provide (according to the engine operating map - Figure A-4).
Figure 4-11: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX=0/Torque Demand <=

T_ICE_map, for battery charge mode
However, if the logical variable CHECK_MAX is equal to 1, that means that the battery SOC
has reached its maximum value before, the engine should be switched off and the vehicle
should be on motor-alone propelling mode, until the battery SOC reaches its minimum value,
when the engine will be switched on again. In that case, the controller uses another logical
variable CHECK_MIN, for defining if the battery SOC has reached its minimum value or not. In
the beginning of the drive cycle, this logical variable is equal to zero, but when the battery SOC
is lower than or equal to its minimum value, then this logical variable will be equal to 1. Thats
why; the controller first needs to identify if the battery SOC has reached its minimum value (see
Figure 4-12).
36
Figure 4-12: Model of the Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX>0
So, if the battery SOC is lower than or equal to its minimum value, then the logical variable
CHECK_MIN will become equal to 1 (see Figure 4-13). In that case, according to the rules of
the thermostat control strategy (see Figure 3-4), the engine should be switched on and the
battery should be charged. In other words, the vehicle will be again on hybrid propelling mode
or battery charge mode, depending of the torque demand and the maximum torque generated
by the engine (according to the engine operating map - Figure A-4). Again, Figure 4-10 and
Figure 4-11 show how the torques generated by the motor, the engine and the regeneration
process are calculated by the controller based on the rules of the control strategy.
Figure 4-13: Model of the Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX>0/SOC<=SOCmin
37
Obviously, when the CHECK_MAX is equal to 1 (i.e. the battery SOC has reached its
maximum value before) and the CHECK_MIN is equal to 0 (i.e. the battery SOC has never
reached its minimum value before), then the power management controller sets the vehicle on
motor-alone propelling mode and the engine is switched off. . In that case, the controller follows
the same rules as they are presented in Figure 4-8 above. As it was mentioned above, the
variable CHECK_MIN will become equal to 1, when the battery SOC reaches its minimum
value and the engine will be switched on.
However, if the logical variable CHECK_MIN is equal to 1, that means that the battery SOC has
reached its minimum value before, the engine should be switched on and the vehicle should be
on hybrid propelling mode or battery charge mode, until the battery SOC reaches its maximum
value, when the engine will be switched off. In that case, the controller follows the same rules
as they are presented in Figure 4-9, Figure 4-10 & Figure 4-11 above and it sets the vehicle on
hybrid propelling mode or battery charge mode. The following
Figure 4-14: Flowchart of Logical Variables
Finally, it is worth mentioning that the logical variable CHECK_MAX is set to zero each time
that the battery SOC passes its pre-defined maximum limit. Similarly, the logical variable
CHECK_MIN is set to zero each time the battery SOC passes its pre-defined minimum limit.
The same processes are followed by the power management controller at each step of the
simulation so that the operation cycle of the controller is repeated under the whole drive cycle.
4.2.3. Battery
Figure 4-15 shows the block diagram of the block-subsystem Battery, which is responsible for
the calculation of the battery SOC. The inputs of this subsystem are the rotational speed of the
motor, the torque of the motor and the torque generated by the regeneration process. As it can
be seen in Figure 4-1, both torques are defined by the power management controller.
38
Figure 4-15: Model of Battery
Also, the motor efficiency map (see Figure A-6) is implemented into this subsystem as a lookup
table indexed by the motor speed, motor torque and motor efficiency. The motor efficiency is
used by the subsystem for defining the battery power according to the Equation 3.18 of section
3.2.3. Moreover, the subsystem Current Calculation (see Figure B-6) is responsible for the
calculation of the battery current, according to the Equation 3.23 of section 3.2.4.
At this point, it is worth mentioning that if the battery current is positive, the battery is charged,
but if the battery current is negative, the battery is discharged. However, the current that
charges the battery cannot be greater than the battery charge peak (the maximum value of the
charging current). Similarly, the current that discharges the battery cannot be greater than the
battery discharge peak (the maximum value of the discharging current). So, if the charging
current is less than or equal to the battery charge peak, then this charging current will charge
the battery. Otherwise, if the charging current is greater than the battery charge peak, then the
charging current value that will charge the battery will not be greater than the battery charge
peak. The same idea applies to the discharging current and battery discharge peak, as well. All
these operations are executed by the subsystem Final Current Calculation (see Figure B-7),
which is responsible for defining if the battery current is a charging current or a discharging
current.
Finally, the discharging and charging currents of the battery are added in order the final battery
current to be calculated and used by the subsystem SOC and Voc Calculations (see Figure
B-8), which is responsible for the calculation of the battery SOC. The battery SOC is calculated
according to the Equation 3.19 of section 3.2.4. Also, the battery SOC and open-circuit voltage
map (see Figure A-7) is implemented into this model as a lookup table, which is used for the
estimation of the battery open-circuit voltage according to the battery SOC.
4.2.4. Fuel Consumption

Figure 4-16 shows the block diagram of the block-subsystem Fuel Consumption, which is
responsible for the calculation of the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid and no hybrid drive
modes. The inputs of this subsystem are the rotational speed of the engine and the torques of
the engine in both drive modes (see Figure 4-1). The engine torque in hybrid drive mode is
defined by the power management controller. Using Equations 3.13 - 3.16 of section 3.2.2, the
engine torque in no hybrid drive mode and the fuel consumption in both drive modes can be
obtained. Also, the engine fuel rate map (see Figure A-3) is implemented into the model as a
lookup table indexed by the engine speed, engine torque and engine fuel rate. It can be easily
understood that the vehicles fuel consumption is equal to zero, when the engine torque is also
39
equal to zero, in both drive modes. Thats why; the controller first identifies if the engine torque
is equal to zero and then it calculates the vehicles fuel consumption.
Figure 4-16: Model of Fuel Consumption
40
5. Results and Discussion

Taking into consideration the modelling techniques (as they were described in section 3) and
the developed simulation model (as it was described in section 4), the following simulation
results were obtained by the MATLAB/Simulink software, regarding the double-shaft parallel
HEV (with a torque coupler) in which a thermostat power management controller was
implemented.
5.1. New European Drive Cycle (NEDC)

At this section of this paper, the simulation results of the parallel HEV are discussed based on
the NEDC drive cycle.
5.1.1. Battery SOC variation and Engine On/Off Operation

The NEDC drive cycle can be seen in Figure 5-1 and the simulation results of the vehicles
battery SOC variation over this drive cycle can be seen in Figure 5-2. Also, Figure 5-3 shows
the simulation results of the vehicles engine on/off operation over the NEDC drive cycle. As it
can be seen in Table B-1, the initial battery SOC was 70% of the battery capacity, whilst the
upper and lower limits of the battery SOC were 80% and 60% respectively.
Figure 5-1: NEDC drive cycle
Figure 5-2: Battery SOC Results over NEDC drive cycle
Figure 5-3: Engine ON/OFF Operation Results over NEDC drive cycle
41
To begin with, it is worth mentioning that when the battery SOC remains unchanged, i.e. the
line of its graph is horizontal (see Figure 5-2), then the vehicle is at an idling stop. So, both the
engine and the motor are not operated. As it can be seen in Figure 5-1, the NEDC contains
several idling stops. During the whole NEDC, the engine is switched on 3 times and switched
off 3 times, as well. Also, during the whole drive cycle, the battery SOC reaches its upper limit
twice and its lower limit twice, as well.
Looking at Figure 5-2 & Figure 5-3, it can be seen that in the beginning of the NEDC cycle, the
engine is switched on (for the 1st time) by the thermostat controller since the initial battery SOC
is lower than its upper limit and the battery has to be charged. The battery is gradually charged
and the vehicle is set on hybrid propelling mode or battery charge mode (when the vehicle is on
traction), until the battery SOC reaches its upper limit (near the 200th second of the NEDC).
According to the urban part of the NEDC cycle (see Figure 5-1) there are a few periods of
braking during this time period, which means that the regenerative braking process takes place
for charging the battery.
When the battery SOC reaches and passes its upper limit (for the 1st time), the thermostat
controller switches the engine off (for the 1st time), since the battery SOC moves from its upper
limit to its lower one. The engine remains switched off, until the battery SOC reaches its lower
limit (after the 800th second of the NEDC). The vehicle remains on motor-alone propelling mode
during this time period, since the engine is switched off and only the motor is responsible for
the vehicles traction. During this time period, the battery is gradually discharged, because
regenerative braking process takes place due to several periods of deceleration according to
the urban part of the NEDC cycle (see Figure 5-1).
Moreover, when the battery SOC passes its lower limit (for the 1st time - after the 800th second
of the NEDC) the engine is switched on again (for the 2nd time), because the battery has to be
charged. Again, the vehicle is set on hybrid propelling mode or battery charge mode by the
controller until the battery SOC reaches its upper limit (for the 2nd time - after the 1000th
second of the NEDC). As it can be seen in Figure 5-2, the battery is quickly charged during this
time period, because the engine delivers its maximum torque (according to its operating map),
which is higher than the vehicles torque demand, and thus the remaining engine torque is used
by the motor for charging the battery. Also, during this time period and according to the
highway part of the NEDC cycle (see Figure 5-1), the vehicle is accelerating from 64 km/h (17.8
m/s) to almost 100 km/h (27.5 m/s), and so the provided torque by the engine is quite high. It is
worth mentioning that the battery is also charged during this time period due to the
regenerative braking process that takes place from the 891th to 899th second of the NEDC.
Again, when the battery SOC reaches its upper limit (for the 2nd time), then the engine is
switched off (for the 2nd time) and the vehicle is on motor-alone propelling mode. As it can be
seen in Figure 5-2, the battery is quickly discharged during this time period, because the motor
has to provide the required vehicles torque demand, which is very high, since the vehicles
speed increases from 100 km/h (27.5 m/s) to 120 km/h (almost 33 m/s). The engine remains
switched off, until the battery SOC reaches its lower limit (for the 2nd time - after the 1100th
second of the NEDC).
When the battery SOC passes its lower limit (for the 2nd time), the engine is switched on only
for a few seconds (for the 3rd time, see Figure 5-3), because at that time the vehicle is cruising
at a constant speed of 120 km/h according to the NEDC. After that cruising, the engine is
switched off (for the 3rd time) and the vehicle stops completely, i.e. it is decelerating from 120
km/h to 0 km/h, causing a high negative motor torque that is used for charging the battery. As a
result of these, the battery is charged by the motor, using the remaining engine torque and by
the regeneration braking process.
42
Finally, the remaining battery SOC at the end of the drive cycle is equal to 64%, because the
battery was quickly discharged, when the vehicle was on motor-alone propelling mode, before
the battery SOC its lower limit for the last time. As it was mentioned above, during this time
period, the vehicle was moving at high speeds. Also, the battery was charged by almost 4%,
when the drive cycle was reaching at its end, because the engine was switched on a few
seconds and there was only one braking period at that time period.
5.1.2. Engine and Motor Operation

Figure 5-4 shows the torque variation of both the engine and the motor over the NEDC drive
cycle. But, the torques of these power sources can be seen separately in Figure 5-5 & Figure
5-6.
Figure 5-4: Torques of Electric Motor and Internal Combustion Engine over NEDC drive cycle
Figure 5-5: Torque of Electric Motor over NEDC drive cycle
43
Figure 5-6: Torque of Internal Combustion Engine over NEDC drive cycle
To begin with, looking at the Figures 5-4 5-6, it can be easily understood that when the torque
outputs of the motor and the engine are equal to zero, then the vehicle is at an idling stop
(according to the NEDC) and the battery SOC remains unchanged (see Figure 5-2).
Looking at the three Figures above, it can be seen that when the engine is operated (i.e. the
engine torque is greater than zero) the motor generates a negative torque, in most cases. The
negative motor torque is used for charging the battery. This means that when the vehicles
torque demand is less than the maximum torque that the engine generates (according to the
engine operating map), then the remaining torque is used by the motor for charging the battery.
This process is followed when the vehicle is on battery charge mode and the battery SOC
moves from its lower limit to its upper one, i.e. the battery is charged (see Figure 5-2 & Figure
5-4).
However, there are cases, in which the torque demand is higher than the maximum torque that
the engine generates and the remaining torque demand is delivered by the motor (see Figure
5-4, Figure 5-5 & Figure 5-6). This process is followed when the vehicle is on hybrid propelling
mode and the battery SOC moves from its lower limit to its upper one. In other words, the
motor is used as a secondary power source in that case. Such a case can be found in the time
interval 836th 856th second of the NEDC, when the battery SOC is less than its lower limit,
because the motor uses the battery energy for delivering the remaining torque demand and the
engine generates its maximum torque (see Figure 5-2, Figure 5-4, Figure 5-5 & Figure 5-6).
On the other hand, when the vehicle is on motor-propelling mode (especially in the urban part
of the NEDC), the engine torque is equal to zero, since the engine is switched off, and the
motor is responsible for the vehicles traction (see Figure 5-4). This happens when the battery
SOC moves from its upper limit to its lower one, so that the battery will be discharged. In that
case, the motor delivers all the required vehicles torque demand for traction and charges the
battery through the regeneration braking process (i.e. it generates a negative torque), as it can
be seen in the three Figures above.
Therefore, taking all the above information and the Figures 5-2 5-6 into consideration, the
following explanations can be given for the battery SOC variation:
44
In the beginning of the drive cycle, the battery SOC moves from its initial level (70%) to
its upper limit (80%) and the engine is switched on. So, the motor either uses the
remaining torque generated by the engine for charging the battery or delivers the
remaining required torque demand for the vehicles traction. Also, the motor charges the
battery, when the vehicle is braking. These processes are followed by the controller
until the battery SOC reaches its upper limit (near the 200th second of the NEDC).
After that, the battery SOC moves from its upper limit to its lower one and the engine is
switched off. The vehicle follows the urban part of the NEDC, which contains several
idling stops and cruising at constant speeds. As a result of these, the motor is either
operated as a propulsion power source or as a generator that charges the battery when
the vehicle is braking. Thats why; the battery is gradually discharged. These processes
are followed by the controller until the battery SOC reaches its lower limit (after the 800th
second of the NEDC).
Next, the battery SOC moves from its lower limit to its upper one and the engine is
switched on again. Again, at this time period, the motor either uses the remaining
engine torque for charging the battery or delivers the remaining required torque demand
for the vehicles traction. But, at this time period, the motor is used as a propulsion
power source only once, i.e. the motor is mainly used as a generator leading to a quick
battery charge. These processes are followed by the controller until the battery SOC
reaches its upper limit again (after the 1000th second of the NEDC).
Next, the battery SOC moves again from its upper limit to its lower one with the engine
switched off. But, since the speeds that the vehicle should follow are so high, the motor
torque output makes the battery to be quickly discharged. In that case, the vehicle
follows the highway part of the NEDC. These processes are followed by the controller
until the battery SOC reaches its lower limit again (after the 1100th second of the
NEDC).
After that, the battery moves from its lower limit to its upper one (for the last time) and
the engine is switched on for a few seconds. When the engine is operated, the vehicle
is cruising at a constant speed of 120 km/h and the motor charges the battery using the
remaining engine torque. After that cruising, the engine is switched off, because the
vehicle is braking and the motor is used as a generator for charging the battery.
Finally, it is mentioning that the motor is mainly used at its optimal efficiency through the whole
NEDC drive cycle. Figure 5-7 shows the location of the motor operating points on the motor
efficiency map. As it can be seen, the majority of the operating points are in efficiency regions,
where the motor efficiency varies from 80% to 90%. However, the rest of the motor operating
points are not close to its efficient region, due to the several stop and go conditions in the urban
part of the NEDC.
45
Figure 5-7: Operating Points of Electric Motor over NEDC drive cycle

Table 5-1 shows the simulation results of the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid and no hybrid
drive modes over the NEDC drive cycle. As it can be seen, the obtained results are as they
were expected, i.e. the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid drive mode is less by 34% when
compared to the vehicles fuel consumption in no hybrid drive mode. At this point, it is worth
mentioning that when the vehicle is on no hybrid drive mode, only the engine is responsible for
its traction. On the other hand, when the vehicle is on hybrid drive mode, then both the engine
and the motor are responsible for its traction, reducing the vehicles fuel consumption.
Table 5-1: Comparison of the vehicle's Fuel Consumption in hybrid and no hybrid drive modes over the NEDC drive
cycle
Type of Drive Mode
Fuel Consumption
(liters/100km)
Hybrid Drive Mode (with thermostat control strategy)
5.45
No Hybrid Drive Mode
8.28
5.2. City Cycle (FTP-75)

At this point of this paper, the simulation results of the parallel HEV are discussed based on the
city drive cycle FTP-75.
5.2.1. Battery SOC variation and Engine On/Off Operation

The city drive cycle FTP-75 can be seen in Figure 5-8 and the simulation results of the
vehicles battery SOC variation over this drive cycle can be seen in Figure 5-9. Also, Figure
5-10 shows the simulation results of the vehicles engine on/off operation over the NEDC drive
46
cycle. As it can be seen in Table B-1, the initial battery SOC was 70% of the battery capacity,
whilst the upper and lower limits of the battery SOC were 80% and 60% respectively.
Figure 5-8: FTP-75 drive cycle
Figure 5-9: Battery SOC Results over FTP-75 drive cycle
Figure 5-10: Engine ON/OFF Operation Results over FTP-75 drive cycle
To begin with, it is worth mentioning that when the battery SOC remains unchanged, i.e. the
line of its graph is horizontal (see Figure 5-9), then the vehicle is at an idling stop. So, both the
engine and the motor are not operated. As it can be seen in Figure 5-8, the FTP-75 contains
several idling stops, which are more than the idling stops of the NEDC. During the whole city
cycle FTP-75, the engine is switched on 3 times and switched off 2 times. Also, during the
whole drive cycle, the battery SOC reaches its upper limit twice and its lower limit twice, as
well.
47
Looking at Figure 5-9 & Figure 5-10, it can be seen that in the beginning of the city cycle (cold
start phase), the engine is switched on (for the 1st time) by the thermostat controller since the
initial battery SOC is lower than its upper limit and the battery has to be charged. The battery is
gradually charged and the vehicle is set on hybrid propelling mode or battery charge mode
(when the vehicle is on traction), until the battery SOC reaches its upper limit (near the 270th
second of the FTP-75). During this time period, the city cycle is characterized by several high
decelerations and accelerations (see Figure 5-8), which the motor is either used as a
propulsion power source or as a motor for charging the battery through regenerative braking
process.
When the battery SOC reaches and passes its upper limit (for the 1st time), the thermostat
controller switches the engine off (for the 1st time), since the battery SOC moves from its upper
limit to its lower one. The engine remains switched off, until the battery SOC reaches its lower
limit (after the 650th second of the drive cycle). The vehicle remains on motor-alone propelling
mode during this time period, since the engine is switched off. During this time period, the
battery is gradually discharged, because regenerative braking process takes place due to the
several deceleration periods of the drive cycle.
Moreover, when the battery SOC passes its lower limit (for the 1st time) the engine is switched
on again (for the 2nd time), because the battery has to be charged. Again, the vehicle is set on
hybrid propelling mode or battery charge mode by the controller until the battery SOC reaches
its upper limit (for the 2nd time - after the 950th second of the drive cycle). As it can be seen in
Figure 5-9, the battery is gradually charged during this time period, because sometimes the
torque demand is higher than the maximum engine torque and the motor delivers the remaining
torque demand. Also, during this time period, there are several braking periods, in which the
motor is used as a generator for charging the battery through the regenerative braking process.
Again, when the battery SOC reaches its upper limit (for the 2nd time), then the engine is
switched off (for the 2nd time) and the vehicle is on motor-alone propelling mode. As it can be
seen in Figure 5-9, the battery is again gradually discharged during this time period, as it was
at the first time when the battery SOC was moving from its upper limit to its lower one. The
engine remains switched off, until the battery SOC reaches its lower limit (for the 2nd time after the 1450th second of the drive cycle).
When the battery SOC passes its lower limit (for the 2nd time), the engine is switched on only
until the end of the drive cycle (for the 3rd time, see Figure 5-10), because at that time the
vehicle is in the hot start phase of the drive cycle, which is the same as its cold start phase. In
other words, both phases are characterized by high deceleration and acceleration periods. As a
result of these, the battery is not always charged by the motor, because the motor helps the
engine for the vehicles propulsion.
Finally, the remaining battery SOC at the end of the drive cycle was quite satisfactory, since it
was equal to 75%, because the battery was quickly charged, when the drive cycle was
reaching at its end. As it was mentioned above, during this time period, the vehicle had several
acceleration and deceleration periods. As a results of these, the engine was operated a few
times and the regeneration braking process took place several times as well.
5.2.2. Engine and Motor Operation

Figure 5-11 shows the torque variation of both the engine and the motor over the NEDC drive
cycle. But, the torques of these power sources can be seen separately in Figure 5-12 & Figure
5-13.
48
Figure 5-11: Torques of Electric Motor and Internal Combustion Engine over FTP-75 drive cycle
Figure 5-12: Torque of Electric Motor over FTP-75 drive cycle
Figure 5-13: Torque of Internal Combustion Engine over FTP-75 drive cycle
49
To begin with, looking at the Figures 5-11 5-13, it can be easily understood that when the
torque outputs of the motor and the engine are equal to zero, then the vehicle is at an idling
stop (according to the drive cycle) and the battery SOC remains unchanged (see Figure 5-9).
Looking at the three Figures of this subsection, it can be seen that in some cases when the
engine is operated, the motor is used as a generator, because the torque demand is less than
the maximum engine torque. This process is followed when the vehicle is on battery charge
mode and the battery SOC moves from its lower limit to its upper one, i.e. the battery is
charged (see Figure 5-9 & Figure 5-11).
However, there are many cases, in which the torque demand is higher than the maximum
engine torque (see Figure 5-11, Figure 5-12 & Figure 5-13). This process is followed when the
vehicle is on hybrid propelling mode and the battery SOC moves from its lower limit to its upper
one. In other words, the motor is used as a secondary power source in that case. Such cases
can be found in the time intervals 190th 205th, 657th 664th & 1559th 1595th second of the
drive cycle. Thats why; in the latter time interval, the battery SOC drops down from its lower
limit, because the motor uses the battery energy for delivering the remaining torque demand
and the engine generates its maximum torque (see Figure 5-9, Figure 5-11, Figure 5-12 &
Figure 5-13).
On the other hand, when the vehicle is on motor-propelling mode, the engine torque is equal to
zero, since the engine is switched off, and the motor propels the vehicle (see Figure 5-11). This
happens when the battery SOC moves from its upper limit to its lower one, so that the battery
will be discharged. In that case, the motor delivers the whole required vehicles torque demand
for traction and charges the battery through the regeneration braking process, as it can be seen
in the three Figures of this subsection.
Finally, it is mentioning that the motor is mainly used at its optimal efficiency through the whole
FTP-75 drive cycle. Figure 5-14 shows the location of the motor operating points on the motor
efficiency map. As it can be seen, the majority of the operating points are in efficiency regions,
where the motor efficiency varies from 80% to 90%. However, the rest of the motor operating
points are not close to its efficient region, due to the several stop and go conditions in the city
drive cycle FTP-75.
Figure 5-14: Operating Points of Electric Motor over FTP-75 drive cycle
50

Table 5-2 shows the simulation results of the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid and no hybrid
drive modes over the city drive cycle FTP-75. Again, as it can be seen, the obtained results are
as they were expected, i.e. the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid drive mode is less by 24%
when compared to the vehicles fuel consumption in no hybrid drive mode.
Table 5-2: Comparison of the vehicle's Fuel Consumption in hybrid and no hybrid drive modes over the FTP-75
drive cycle
Type of Drive Mode
Fuel Consumption
(liters/100km)
Hybrid Drive Mode (with thermostat control strategy)
5.55
No Hybrid Drive Mode
7.30
5.3. Summary
As it was found, the electric motor was used most by the thermostat controller, whilst the
battery was maintained between its pre-defined upper and lower limits, in both drive cycles
(NEDC & FRP-75). The simulation results showed that the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid
mode was significantly reduced by 34% and 24%, in NEDC and FTP-75 respectively, when
compared to the vehicles fuel consumption in no hybrid mode. Also, the remaining battery
SOC was more satisfactory in the FTP-75 city cycle, since it was equal to 75%, when
compared to the remaining battery SOC in the NEDC drive cycle (the battery SOC was equal to
64%).
However, there were some cases, in which the battery SOC dropped down from its lower limit
(in both cycles), which is not acceptable by the thermostat control strategy. As it was
mentioned above, this strategy maintains the battery SOC between its pre-defined upper and
lower limits. But, it was found that in these cases the required torque demand was higher than
the maximum torque generated by the engine. Also, in these cases, the motor was assisting
the engine, delivering the remaining required torque for the vehicles traction. Therefore, the
battery was discharged, since it had to provide the required energy for the motors operation as
a secondary propulsion power source, because the vehicle was on hybrid propelling mode.
Such cases were found more in the FTP-75 cycle than in the NEDC cycle, because the first
drive cycle is characterized by more and higher acceleration/deceleration periods than the
latter drive cycle is.
Moreover, another difference between the two mentioned drive cycles is that the FTP-75 cycle
is longer than the NEDC cycle. Despite the two mentioned difference between both cycles, the
simulation results showed that the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid mode was almost
identical in both cycles. In the FTP-75 city cycle, the motor was used more for the vehicles
propulsion than in the NEDC cycle, but the regeneration braking process took place more times
in the first drive cycle than in the latter one, as well. As a result of these, it was seen that the
total time period, at which the vehicle was on motor-alone propelling mode, was longer in the
FTP-75 cycle than in the NEDC cycle. Therefore, the vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid more
was maintained at the same level in both cycles, despite the fact that the engine was used
more in the FTP-75 cycle than in the NEDC cycle.
51
6. Concluding Remarks
6.1. Conclusions
In this paper, the implementation of a rule-based control strategy into a double-shaft parallel
HEV (with torque coupler) was presented. Taking into consideration the objectives of this paper
and the simulation results, the following remarks can be made:
The motor was used most by the thermostat controller as the primary power source in
both cycles, but in the FTP-75 drive cycle was used more than in the NEDC drive cycle.
This is reasonable, because the first drive cycle is characterized by a longer duration
and by more and higher acceleration/deceleration periods than the latter one.
Also, the engine was used by the thermostat controller as the secondary power source
in both cycles.
The battery SOC was maintained between its pre-defined upper and lower limits in both
cycles. However, there were some cases (in both cycles), in which the battery SOC
dropped down from its lower limit, because at that moment the torque demand was
much higher than the maximum engine torque, and thus the motor was assisting the
engine discharging the battery.
The remaining battery SOC was higher and more satisfactory in the FTP-75 than in the
NEDC (75% and 64% respectively), because in the latter cycle the engine is switched
off for a few seconds, when the battery SOC reaches its lower limit, before the
regeneration braking process takes place.
The vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid mode is almost the same in both cycles.
Despite the differences between the two drive cycles, the city cycle FTP-75 allows the
regenerative braking process to take place more times than the NEDC cycle does.
The vehicles fuel consumption in hybrid mode was significantly decreased by 34% and
24% in the NEDC and FTP-75 cycles respectively, when compared to the vehicles fuel
consumption in no hybrid mode.
Finally, this paper shows that the solution of the thermostat control strategy can significantly
improve the vehicles fuel economy in both drive cycles. However, the vehicles fuel economy
was more improved in the FTP-75 drive cycle than in the NEDC drive cycle, taking into
consideration the differences between both rive cycles. The advantages of the thermostat
control strategy are clear and its effectiveness was proven for both drive cycles.
6.2. Further Work

Further research could be done regarding the effectiveness of the thermostat control strategy in
other more complicated hybrid powertrains. Such a hybrid powertrain is the compound hybrid
powertrain which consists of two electric motors, one generator, one internal combustion
engine and two transmission/differential systems. Also, further research could be done on the
efficiency of this control strategy, if its main deterministic rules were changed, i.e. an internal
combustion engine could be used as the primary power source and the electric motor as the
secondary power source for the vehicles propulsion.
52
Bibliography
Ambuhl, D., Sundstrom, O., Sciarretta, A. & Guzzella, L., 2010. Explicit optimal control policy
and its practical application for hybrid electric powertrains. Control Engineering Practice,
18(12), pp. 1429-1439.
Amiri, M., Esfahanian, M., Hairi-Yazdi, M. R. & Esfahanian, V., 2009. Minimization of power
losses in hybrid electric vehicles in view of the prolonging of battery life. Journal of Power
Sources, 190(2), pp. 372-379.
Barlow, T. J., Latham, S., McCrae, I. S. & Boulter, P. G., 2009. A reference book of driving
cycles for use in the measurement of road vehicle emissions, Berkshire: IHS.
Bayindir, K. C., Gozukucuk, M. A. & Teke, A., 2011. A comprehensive overview of hybrid
electric vehicle: Powertrain configurations, powertrain control techniques and electronic control
units. Energy Covnersion and Management, 52(2), pp. 1305-1313.
Bolton,
P.,
Available
[Anvnd 02 03 2014].
2014.
at:
Petrol
and
diesel
prices.
[Online]
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04712.pdf
Chasse, A., Pognant-Gros, P. & Sciarretta, A., 2009. Online Implementation of an Optimal
Supervisory Control for a Parallel Hybrid Powertrain. SAE International Journal of Engines,
2(1), pp. 1630-1638.
Chau, K. T. & Wong, Y. S., 2002. Overview of power management in hybrid electric vehicles.
Energy Conversion and Management, 43(15), pp. 1953-1968.
Delprat, S., Lauber, J., Guerra, T. M. & Rimaux, J., 2004. Control of a Parallel Hybrid
Powertrain: Optimal Control. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 53(3), pp. 872-881.
Ehsani, M., Gao, Y. & Emadi, A., 2010. Modern electric, hybrid electric, and fuel cell vehicles:
fundamentals, theory, and design. i: Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, pp. 1-17,
72-73, 284-288, 377.
Fallah, S., Khajepour, A. & Goodarzi, A., 2014. Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: Technologies,
Modeling and Control - A Mechatronic Approach. i: Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom:
Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 71-87, 214-218, 236-240, 246-247, 313-326.
Gao, J.-P., Zhu, G.-M. G., Strangas, E. G. & Sun, F.-C., 2009. Equivalent fuel consumption
optimal control of a series hybrid electric vehicle. Journal of Automobile Engineering, Volym
223, pp. 1003-1018.
Granovskii, M., Dincer, I. & Rosen, M. A., 2006. Economic and environmental comparison of
conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Journal of Power Sources,
159(2), pp. 1186-1193.
International Council on Clean Transportation, 2013. European Vehicle Market Statistics 2013,
Berlin: International Council on Clean Transportation.
Jalil, N., Kheir, N. A. & Salman, M., 1997. A Rule-Based Energy Management Strategy for a
Series Hybrid Vehicle. American Control Conference, Volym 1, pp. 689-693.
53
Keulen, T. v. o.a., 2012. Design, implementation, and experimental validation of optimal power
split control for hybrid electric trucks. Control Engineering Practice, 20(5), pp. 547-558.
Khan, B., Sadegh, N. & Meisel, J., 2005. Optimization of the Fuel Consumption of a Parallel
Hybrid Electric Vehicle. IEEE Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics, 1(3), pp. 128-133.
Kim, M., Jung, D. & Min, K., 2014. Hybrid Thermostat Strategy for Enhanced Fuel Economy of
Series Hybrid Intra-city Bus. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, PP(99), pp. 3-10.
Kim, N., Cha, S. & Peng, H., 2011. Optimal Control of Gybrid Electric Vehicle Based n
Pontryagin's Minimum Principle. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 19(5), pp.
1279-1287.
Kim, Y., Lee, T.-K. & Filipi, Z., 2012. Frequency Domain Power Distribution Strategy for Series
Hybrid Electric Vehicles. SAE International Journal of Alternative Powertrains, 1(1), pp. 208218.
Lave, L. B. & MacLean , H. L., 2002. An environmental-economic evaluation of hybrid electric
vehicles_ Toyota's Prius vs. its conventional internal combustion engine Corolla. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 7(2), pp. 155-162.
Lee, H.-D. & Sul, S.-K., 1998. Fuzzy-Logic-Based torque Control Strategy for Parallel-Type
Hybrid Electric Vehicle. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 45(4), pp. 625-632.
Lin, C.-C., Peng, H., Grizzle, J. W. & Kang, J.-M., 2003. Power Management Strategy for a
Parallel Hybid Electric Truck. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 1(6), pp.
839-849.
McGehee, J. & Yoon, H.-S., 2013. An Optimal Powertrain Control Strategy for a Mild Hybrid
Electric Vehicle. SAE Technical Paper.
Mi, C., Marsur, A. M. & Gao, D. W., 2011. Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Principles and Applicaions
with Practical Perspectives. i: Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd, pp. 413-415.
Onea, A. & Babici , C., 2013. Power Management Solutions for Hybrid Electric Vehicles.
Electrical and Electronics Engineering (ISEEE), pp. 1-8.
Paganelli, G. o.a., 2000. Simulation andd assessment of power control strategies for a parallel
hybrid car. Journal of Automobile Engineering, Volym 214, pp. 705-717.
Perez, L. V., Bossio, G. R., Moitre, D. & Garcia, G. O., 2006. Optimization of power
management in an hybrid electric vehicle using dynamic programming. Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation, 73(1-4), pp. 244-254.
Perez, L. V. & Pilotta, E. A., 2009. Optimal power split in hybrid electric vehicle using direct
transcription of an optimal control problem. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 79(6),
pp. 1959-1970.
Phillips, A. M., Jankovic, M. & Bailey, K. E., 2000. Vehicle System Controller Design for a
Hybrid Electric Vehicle. IEEE Control Applications, pp. 297-301.
54
Poursamad, A. & Montazeri, M., 2008. Design of genetic-fuzzy control strategy for parallel
hybrid electric vehicles. Control Engineering Practise, 16(7), pp. 861-873.
Salman, M., Schouten, N. I. & Kheir, N. A., 2000. Control Strategies for Parallel Hybrid
Vehicles. American Control Conference, 1(6), pp. 524-528.
Salmasi, F. R., 2007. Control Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Evolution, Classification,
Comparison and Future Trends. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , 56(5), pp. 23932404.
Sciarretta, A., Back, M. & Guzzella, L., 2004. Optimal Control of Parallel Hybrid Electric
Vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology, 12(3), pp. 352-363.
Sharma, R. o.a., 2012. Conventional, hybrid and electric vehicles for Australian driving
conditions Part 1_ Technical and financial analysis. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies, Volym 25, pp. 238-249.
Sharma, R. o.a., 2013. Conventional, hybrid and electric vehicles for Australian driving
conditions. Part 2: Life cycle CO2-e emissions. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, Volym 28, pp. 63-73.
Sorrel, S. o.a., 2009. Global Oil Depletion, London: UK Energy Research.
UK Government Services, 2014. Energy trends section 3: oil and oil products. [Online]
Available
at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266411/oil.pdf
[Anvnd 02 03 2014].
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. What is Acid Rain?. [Online]
Available
at:
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/what/index.html
[Anvnd 02 03 2014].
United States Environmental Protection Agency, u.d. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. [Online]
Available
at:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html
[Anvnd 02 03 2014].
Westbrook, M. H., 2001. The electric car: development and future of battery, hybrid and fuelcell cars. i: London: The Institution of Engineering and Technology, pp. 142-143, 174-175.
55
Appendix A
Figure A-1: New European Drive Cycle (Fallah, et al., 2014)
Figure A-2: City Cycle (FTP-75) (Fallah, et al., 2014)
56
Figure A-3: ICE Fuel Rate Map (Fallah, et al., 2014)
140
120
Torque (Nm)
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Speed (rpm)
Figure A-4: Internal Combustion Engine Operating Map (Fallah, et al., 2014)
57
500
400
300
Torque (Nm)
200
100
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
-100
-200
-300
-400
-500
Speed (rpm)
Figure A-5: Electric Motor Operating Map (Fallah, et al., 2014)
Figure A-6: Electric Motor Efficiency Map (Fallah, et al., 2014)
58
400
350
Battery V_oc (V)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Battery SOC (%)
Figure A-7: Battery State of Charge and Open-Circuit Voltage Map (Fallah, et al., 2014)
59
Appendix B
Table B-1: Design Specifications (Fallah, et al., 2014)
Abbreviation
Value
Description
2.31
Frontal Area of the Vehicle (m2)
0.015
Rolling Resistance Coefficient
2.2777
Theoretical Capacity of Battery (kWh)
0.28
Drag Coefficient
Charge_Peak
30
The maximum current that can charge the battery (A)
Discharge_Peak
360
The maximum current that can discharge the battery (A)
9.81
Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2)
1900
Vehicle Mass (kg)
3.3333 105
Internal Resistance of the Battery (Ohms)
0.33
Wheel Radius (m)
80
Maximum Battery State of Charge (%)
60
Minimum Battery State of Charge (%)
70
Initial Battery State of Charge (%)
368
Maximum Torque of Electric Motor based on EM Operating

Map (Nm)
-400
Minimum Torque of Electric Motor based on EM Operating

Map (Nm)
128.7
Maximum Torque of Internal Combustion Engine based on ICE

Operating Map (Nm)
Minimum Torque of Internal Combustion Engine based on ICE

Operating Map (Nm)
1.435
Gear Ratio of Electric Motor Gearbox
1st gear
Gear Ratio of 1st gear of the Internal Combustion Engine

Gearbox
2nd gear
3.5
Gear Ratio of 2nd gear of the Internal Combustion Engine

Gearbox
3rd gear
Gear Ratio of 3rd gear of the Internal Combustion Engine

Gearbox
Gear Ratio of the Torque Coupler-Motor Input
Gear Ratio of the Torque Coupler-Engine Input
3.538
Gear Ratio of Differential or Final Drive Ratio

60
0.85
Efficiency of Electric Motor Gearbox
0.85
Efficiency of Internal Combustion Engine Gearbox
0.85
Overall Efficiency of Gears from Wheel to EM
0.85
Efficiency of the Torque Coupler-Motor Input
0.85
Efficiency of the Torque Coupler-Engine Input
Efficiency of Differential
1.2754
Density of air (kg/m3)
Table B-2: Table of the Model Browser in Simulink
Figure 4-15
Figure B-6
Figure B-7
Figure B-8
Figure 4-16
Figure 4-4
Figure 4-5
Figure 4-6
Figure B-2
Figure B-3
Figure 4-7
Figure B-4
Figure 4-12
Figure 4-13
Figure 4-11
Figure 4-10
Figure B-5
Figure 4-9
Figure 4-11
Figure 4-10
Figure 4-8
Figure 4-9
Figure 4-11
Figure 4-10
Figure 4-8
Figure 4-3
Figure 4-2
61
clear all
clc
Drive_Cycle = xlsread('NEDC.xlsx','NEDC','A2:B1182');
Distance=11.017;
%Total distance of NEDC in km
%Specifications of the parallel HEV
M=1900;
R=0.33;
C_d=0.28;
A=2.31;
RR=0.015;
R_a=1.2754;
Gear_Ratio_EM=1.435;
Gear_Ratio_TC=1;
n=0.85;
n_d=1;
Final_Drive_Ratio=3.538;
%Vehicle's mass (kg)

%Tire radius (m)
%Drag coefficient of the vehicle
%Frontal area of the vehicle (m^2)
%Rolling resistance coefficient
%Density of air (kg/m^3)
%Gear ratio for the gearbox of the electric
%motor (EM)
%Gear ratio for torque coupler (TC)-ICE input
%and torque coupler (TC)-EM input
%Efficiency of all gears
%Efficiency of differential
%Final drive ratio or gear ratio of differential
%Overall gear ratio from wheel to EM

Overall_Gear_Ratio_EM = Gear_Ratio_EM*Gear_Ratio_TC*Final_Drive_Ratio;
%Overall efficiency of gears from wheel to ICE
Overall_n_ICE=n*n*n_d;
%Overall efficiency of gears from wheel to EM(all gears have the same eff.)
Overall_n_EM=Overall_n_ICE;
%Specifications of the Electric Motor
T_EM_min=-400;
T_EM_max=368;
%Data for the rotational speed (rad/s) of the EM operating map
EM_speed_max_index=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','EM_spd_trq_map','A3:N3');
%Data for the torque (Nm) of the EM operating map
EM_torque_max_map=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','EM_spd_trq_map','A6:N6');
%Data for the rotational speed (rad/s) of the EM efficiency map
EM_eff_speed_index=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','EM_eff_map','A3:AS3');
%Data for the torque (Nm) of the EM efficiency map
EM_eff_torque_index=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','EM_eff_map','A6:CC6');
%Data for the efficiency of the EM efficiency map
EM_eff_map=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','EM_eff_map','A9:CC53');
%Specifications of the Internal Combustion Engine
T_ICE_min=0;
T_ICE_max=128.7;
62
%Data for the rotational speed (rad/s) of the ICE operating map
ICE_speed_max_index=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','ICE_spd_trq_map','A3:Y3');
%Data for the torque (Nm) of the ICE operating map
ICE_torque_max_map=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','ICE_spd_trq_map','A6:Y6');
%Data for the rotational speed (rad/s) of the ICE fuel rate map
ICE_fuel_speed_index=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','ICE_fuel_rate_map','A3:S3');
%Data for the torque (Nm) of the ICE fuel rate map
ICE_fuel_torque_index=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','ICE_fuel_rate_map','A6:R6');
%Data for the fuel rate (Nm) of the ICE fuel rate map
ICE_fuel_rate_map=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','ICE_fuel_rate_map','A9:R27');
%Specifications of the Battery
CHECK_MAX=0;
CHECK_MIN=0;
SOC_min=60;
SOC_max=80;
SOC_initial=70;
R_B_int=(3.3333*(10^(-5))); %Battery Internal Resistance (Ohms)
Charge_Peak=30;
Discharge_Peak=360;
C_TB=2.277;
%Battery Theoretical Capacity (kWh)
%Data for the battery SOC of the SOC/Open Circuit Voltage map
Battery_SOC=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','Battery','A3:U3');
%Data for the Open Circuit Voltage of the SOC/Open Circuit Voltage map
Battery_Voltage_open_circuit=xlsread('Maps.xlsx','Battery','A6:U6');
%Input of Simulink Model
Simulink_Model='HEV_model_multi_gear';
load_system(Simulink_Model)
Stop_sim_time=num2str(Drive_Cycle);
set_param(Simulink_Model,'StartTime','0','StopTime',Stop_sim_time)
sim(Simulink_Model)
%Figure of EM & ICE Torques
plot (Scope_T_EM.time, Scope_T_EM.signals.values, 'linewidth', 2)
hold on
plot (Scope_T_ICE.time, Scope_T_ICE.signals.values,'r', 'linewidth', 2)
grid on
legend ('Torque of EM', 'Torque of ICE')
xlabel({'Time (sec)'},'FontSize',18);
ylabel({'Torque (Nm)'},'FontSize',18);
%Figure of EM Torque
plot (Scope_T_EM.time, Scope_T_EM.signals.values, 'linewidth', 2)
grid on
legend ('Torque of EM')
63
%Figure of ICE Torque
plot (Scope_T_ICE.time, Scope_T_ICE.signals.values,'r', 'linewidth', 2)
grid on
legend ('Torque of ICE')
%Figure of Battery SOC
plot (Scope_SOC.time, Scope_SOC.signals.values)
grid on
legend ('Torque of ICE')
ylabel({'SOC (%)'},'FontSize',18);
%Figure of EM Operating Points
hgload('EM_Efficiency_Map');
hold on
plot (W_EM_rpm.signals.values, Scope_T_EM.signals.values, 'd')
grid on
legend ('EM Operating Points')
Published with MATLAB R2013a

Figure B-1: MATLAB Code
Figure B-2: Model of Power Management/Braking/Negative Torque Check/Wheel Braking Torque < Max Regen EM
Torque
Figure B-3: Model of Power Management/Braking/Negative Torque Check/Wheel Braking Torque >= Max Regen
EM Torque
64
Figure B-4: Model of Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax
Figure B-5: Model of the Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX>0/SOC>SOCmin
Figure B-6: Model of Battery/Current Calculation
65
Figure B-7: Model of Battery/Final Current Calculation
Figure B-8: Model of Battery/SOC and Voc Calculations
66

Power Management Control Design For A Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power Management Control Design For A Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power Management Control Design for a Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Department of Mechanical Engineering Sciences

Project Supervisor: Dr. Saber Fallah

Disadvantages of Conventional Vehicles .................................................................... 1

Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) .................................................................................. 3

Comparison of Conventional, Hybrid Electric and Electric Vehicles ...................... 3

Economics of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) ..................................................... 5

Powertrain Configurations of Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) .............................. 6

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) ........................................................... 10

Power Management ........................................................................................... 10

Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 12

Deterministic Rule-Based Control Strategies...................................................... 13

Fuzzy Rule-Based Control Strategies ................................................................ 16

Rule-Based Control Strategies .................................................................................. 12

Optimization-Based Control Strategies...................................................................... 17

Global Optimization-Based Control Strategies ................................................... 18

Real-Time Optimization-Based Control Strategies ............................................. 19

Modelling of Hybrid Electric Vehicle ................................................................................. 21

Generic Vehicle Model .............................................................................................. 21

Longitudinal Dynamics of the Vehicle Model ...................................................... 22

Powertrain Model of a Double-Shaft Parallel HEV with Torque Coupler .................... 23

Overall Gear Ratios and Efficiencies .................................................................. 23

Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) ...................................................................... 24

Electric Motor ..................................................................................................... 25

Thermostat Controller Strategy .......................................................................... 27

Implementation of Powertrain and Control Strategy in MATLAB/Simulink ........................ 30

Vehicle and Powertrain ............................................................................................. 31

Power Management Control Strategy........................................................................ 32

Fuel Consumption .............................................................................................. 39

Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 41

New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) .......................................................................... 41

Battery SOC variation and Engine On/Off Operation .......................................... 41

Engine and Motor Operation .............................................................................. 43

Fuel Consumption .............................................................................................. 46

Battery SOC variation and Engine On/Off Operation .......................................... 46

Engine and Motor Operation .............................................................................. 48

Fuel Consumption .............................................................................................. 51

City Cycle (FTP-75)................................................................................................... 46

Concluding Remarks ........................................................................................................ 52

Further Work ............................................................................................................. 52

Figure 4-12: Model of the Power Management/Traction/SOC<SOCmax/CHECK_MAX>0 ...... 37

Figure B-3: Model of Power Management/Braking/Negative Torque Check/Wheel Braking

Frontal Area of the Vehicle (m2)

Rolling Resistance Coefficient

Theoretical Capacity of Battery (kWh)

US Environment Protection Agency

Extra Urban Drive Cycle

Rolling Resistance Force (N)

City Drive Cycle

Drive Force (N)

Aerodynamic Resistance Force (N)

ICE Fuel Rate in hybrid mode (liters/second)

ICE Fuel Rate in no hybrid mode (liters/second)

Gravitational Acceleration (m/s2)

Hybrid Electric Vehicle

Internal Combustion Engine

Battery Current (A)

Vehicle Mass (kg)

New European Drive Cycle

Pontryagins Minimum Principle

Power of EM for Charging the Battery (W)

Power of Electric Motor (W)

Maximum Power of Electric Moto based on EM Operating Map (W)