Energy Management Strategy for a Parallel Hybrid Electric Truck

Chan-Chiao Lin1, Jun-Mo Kang2, J.W. Grizzle2, and Huei Peng1

1
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, MI 48109-2125
chancl@[Link], hpeng@[Link]
2
Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan, MI 48109-2122
junmo@[Link], grizzle@[Link]

Abstract over a driving cycle is developed. The resulting feedback laws

from the dynamic programming algorithms are not implementable
Due to the complex nature of hybrid electric vehicles, control due to their preview nature and heavy computational requirement.
strategies based on engineering intuition frequently fail to achieve They are, on the other hand, a good design tool and a benchmark
satisfactory overall system efficiency. This paper presents a against which a basic control strategy can be compared and
procedure for improving the energy management strategy for a improved. We then study the behavior of the dynamic pro-
parallel hybrid electric truck on the basis of dynamic optimization gramming solution carefully, and extract simple, implementable
over a given drive cycle. Dynamic Programming techniques are rules. These rules are then used to augment a simple, intuition-
utilized to determine the optimal control actions for a hybrid based control algorithm. It was found that the performance of the
powertrain in order to minimize fuel consumption. By carefully intuition (rule) based algorithm can be enhanced significantly
analyzing the resulting optimal policy, new rules can be through this design procedure.
ascertained to improve the basic control strategy. The resulting
new control strategy is shown to achieve better fuel economy The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, the configuration
through simulations on a detailed vehicle model. of the hybrid electric truck is briefly described, followed by the
description of the preliminary rule-based control strategy. Next,
dynamic programming is introduced and the optimization result
1. Introduction for minimum fuel consumption is given in Section 3. Section 4
discusses how to design a better rule-based strategy using the
With the growing demand from the world community to reduce results of the dynamic programming algorithm. Conclusions are
the emission of carbon dioxide, and after a decade of intense presented in Section 5.
research, hybrid electric vehicles (HEV) suddenly appear more
viable and necessary than ever before. These vehicles either
reduce or eliminate the reliance on fossil fuels. Owing to their dual 2. Hybrid-Electric Vehicle System (HE-VESIM)
on-board power sources and regenerative braking, HEVs offer
unprecedented possibilities to pursue higher fuel economy, 2.1 System Configuration
particularly if a parallel HEV configuration is employed. To
realize fuel economy benefits, the power management function of The baseline vehicle studied here is the International 4700 series
these advanced vehicles must be carefully designed. By power truck, a 4X2 Class VI diesel truck produced by Navistar. The
management, we mean the development of a higher-level control original diesel engine was downsized from the V8 (7.3L) to a V6
algorithm that determines the total amount of energy to be (5.5L) and a 49 KW electric motor has been selected as the second
generated, and its split between the two power sources. power source. The vehicle system in this study is configured as a
parallel hybrid with the electric motor positioned after the
Most of the control strategies developed for parallel HEVs can be transmission. A schematic of the vehicle and the propulsion
classified into three categories. The first type employs intelligent system is given in Figure 1. The engine is connected to the
control techniques such as rules/fuzzy logic/NN for estimation and torque converter (TC), whose output shaft is then coupled to the
control algorithm development ([1],[2]). The second approach is transmission (Trns). The transmission and the electric motor can
based on static optimization methods. Generally speaking, electric be linked to the propeller shaft (PS), differential (D) and two
energy is translated into an equivalent amount of fuel to calculate driveshafts (DS), coupling the differential with the driven wheels.
the energy cost ([3],[4]). The optimization scheme then figures out Basic vehicle specifications are given in the Appendix.
proper energy and/or power split between the two energy sources

A
under steady-state operation. Because of its relatively simple
point-wise optimization nature, it is possible to extend such
Engine A
Drivetrain A
optimization schemes to solve the simultaneous fuel economy and
A
Exhaust DS
emission optimization problem [5]. The basic idea of the third type Gas EM

AAAAAAA
AA A
T
of HEV control algorithm takes into account the dynamic nature PS

AAAA A
ICM TC Trns D

AAAAAA
AA
AA A
of the system when performing the optimization ([6],[7]). Motor
cooler

C
Inter

IM
Furthermore, the optimization is with respect to a time horizon,
AAAA A
Air
DS
rather than for a fixed point in time. In general, a power split
algorithm resulting from dynamic optimization will be more Power
A
Control
accurate under transient conditions.
AAAA
Module Battery

In this paper, we apply dynamic programming to solve the

minimum fuel optimal control problem for a hybrid electric truck.
AAAA
Figure 1: Schematic diagram of the hybrid electric truck
A dynamic optimal solution to the energy management problem
Our Hybrid Vehicle-Engine SIMulation (HE-VESIM) model is exceeds what the engine can efficiently generate, Pm _ a , the motor
based on the high-fidelity conventional vehicle simulator VESIM
is activated to supply the additional power ( Preq - Pm _ a ).
previously developed at the University of Michigan [8]. VESIM
has been validated against measurements for a Class VI truck, and
proven to be a very versatile tool for mobility, fuel economy and

0. 2
drivability studies. To construct a hybrid-vehicle simulator, some

0. 212 0.214 0.216

500

16 0.214
0 5
0 . 24
0. 2

0. 23
of the main modules required modifications, e.g. reduction of the 27

0. 2 . 23
450 00. . 26 Power

2
engine size/power, and the integration of electric component 400 assist

0.22
models into the system. The model is implemented in the 5
350 0. 20. 24

Engine Torque (Nm)

MATLAB/SIMULINK software environment, as presented in 3

267
0. 2 6
21

0.
2

16
Figure 2. Since the detailed vehicle/chassis models have been 300 0. 2 0. 24

0. 2
0. 2 0.
14 23
presented in ([8],[9]), they are not reviewed here. 250 0.
0.216 5
200 0. 22 0. 2
2 0. 2
4 6
0. 2 0. 2
150 0.23 0. 23 0. 25 0.27
0.24 0.24
Load Input Data 0.25 0. 26
0.26 0. 27
100 0.27 Motor
T pump
w eng w eng
Eng cmd T motor
T pump
T shaft
50 only
DIESEL ENGINE Gear Load Output Variables
w shaft w motor

cyc_mph clutch cmd w trans 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
DRIVELINE
Dring Cycle Engine Speed (rpm)
Motor cmd Current

DRIVER
HEV
Controller
Current soc w motor T motor T wheel
w wheel Figure 3: Power Split Control strategy
ELECTRIC MOTOR Brake
BATTERY
Slope v veh

VEHICLE DYNAMICS
0

Recharging Control: The engine is the prime mover in this

mode. In addition to powering the vehicle, the engine has to
provide additional power for charging the battery. A
Figure 2: Hybrid-electric vehicle simulation in SIMULINK pre-selected recharge power level, Pch , is added to the drivers
power request, and the motor power command is forced to become
2.2 Rule Based Control Strategy negative in order to recharge the battery ( Pm = Pch ). One
exception is that when the total power request is less than the
The final HEV controller that will be implemented will be
engine on power level, Pe _ on , the motor alone will still propel
rule-based. The energy management strategy will only use
current and past vehicle states and driver commands to calculate a the vehicle to prevent the engine from operating in this inefficient
proper (hopefully, close to optimal) control signal. The rule-based region. The other exception is that when total power request is
energy management strategy used as a starting point here was greater than the maximum engine power, the motor power will
developed on the basis of engineering intuition and simple become positive to assist the engine.
analysis of component efficiency tables/charts [9,10]. The design
Braking Control: The regenerative braking is activated to
process starts from interpreting the driver pedal signal as a power
absorb the braking power. However, when the braking power
request, Preq . According to the power request, the operation of
request exceeds the regenerative braking capacity Pm _ min , the
this controller is divided into three control modes: Braking Control,
hydraulic brakes will be activated to assist in vehicle deceleration
Power Split Control or Recharging Control. If the power request is
negative, Braking Control will be applied to decelerate the vehicle. ( Pb = Preq Pm _ min ).
If the power request is positive, either Power Split Control or
The hybrid electric truck with this preliminary rule-based
Recharging Control will be applied according to a
controller was tested through simulation over the EPA Urban
charge-sustaining policy. The charge-sustaining strategy assures
Dynamometer Driving Schedule for Heavy-Duty Vehicles
that the battery state of charge (SOC) stays within preset lower
(UDDSHDV) in order to evaluate the fuel economy. Table 1
and upper bounds. A 55-60% SOC range is chosen for efficient
compares the resulting fuel economy with that of the conventional
battery operation as well as to prevent battery depletion or damage
diesel engine truck.
in an extreme situation. In a normal propulsive driving condition,
the Power Split Control determines the power flow in the hybrid
powertrain. Whenever the SOC drops below the lower limit Table 1: Fuel economy comparison: conventional, and rule-based
(55%), the controller will switch to the Recharging Control mode (RB)
until the SOC reaches the upper limit (60%), and then Power Split RB Conventional
Control will resume. The basic logic of each control mode is MPG 12.56 10.63
briefly described in the following.
Power Split Control: Based on the engine efficiency map
shown in Figure 3, a pre-selected engine on power line, Pe _ on , EM on
3. Dynamic Optimization Problem
and motor assist power line, Pm _ a , are chosen to avoid engine
Contrary to the rule-based algorithm, the dynamic optimization
operation in inefficient areas. If the total power request is less approach usually relies on a model to compute the best control
than the engine on power level, the electric motor will supply strategy. The model can be either analytical or numerical; in other
the requested power. Beyond Pe _ on , the engine replaces the words, it can work with numerical black boxes like HE-VESIM.
motor to provide the total power request. Once the power request For a given driving cycle, the optimal operating strategy to deliver
the best fuel economy can be obtained by solving a dynamic states. A simplified vehicle model is thus developed for
optimization problem. A numerical dynamic programming optimization purposes. The engine, torque converter, differential,
approach will be applied to solve this finite horizon optimization and electric motor are reduced to static models with look-up tables
problem. for I/O mapping and efficiencies. Since the gear shifting duration
is about one second, the automatic transmission was approximated
3.1 Problem Formulation to be a gearbox with gear number as the state. For this reason, the
control to the transmission is constrained to take on the values
In the discrete-time format, a model of the hybrid electric vehicle of 1, 0, and 1 for downshift, no shift and upshift, respectively.
can be expressed as: The other state left is the battery SOC that is dynamically updated
x(k + 1) = f ( x(k ), u ( k )) (1) by the battery current. The simplified model was found to
approximate well the complex model except under rapid
where u (k ) is the vector of control variables such as fuel transients.
injection rate to the engine (kg/cycle), desired output torque from
the motor (Nm), and gear shift command to the transmission, and 3.3 Dynamic Programming (DP) Solution
x(k ) is the vector of state variables of the system. The sampling A powerful algorithm to solve the above optimization problem is
time has been selected to be one second. to use Dynamic Programming (DP). Based on Bellmans principle
of optimality, the DP algorithm is presented as follows [11]:
The goal of the optimization scheme is to find the optimal control
input, u (k ) , which minimizes the total fuel consumption over a Step N 1 :
driving cycle. This defines the cost function to be minimized as
follows: J * N 1 ( x( N 1)) = min [ L( x( N 1), u ( N 1)) + G ( x( N ))] (5)
u ( N 1)

N 1
J = fuel = L(x(k),u(k)) (2) Step k , for 0 k < N 1
k =0
J *k ( x(k )) = min L( x(k ), u ( k )) + J *k +1 ( x( k + 1)) (6)
u(k )
where N is the time length of the driving cycle, and L is the
instantaneous fuel consumption rate. The recursive equation is solved backwards from step N 1 to 0
During the optimization procedure, it is necessary to impose in order to find the optimal control policy. Each of the
certain inequality constraints on the states and control to ensure minimizations is performed subject to the constraints imposed by
they remain within their corresponding bounds: (3) and the driving cycle.

e _ min e e _ min The standard method to solve a Dynamic Programming problem

numerically is to use quantization and interpolation ([11],[12]).
SOCmin SOC SOCmax (3)
The state and control values are first quantized into finite grids. At
Tm _ min ( m , SOC ) Tm Tm _ max ( m , SOC ) each step of the DP algorithm, the function J k ( x (k )) is evaluated
only at the grid points. If the next state, x(k + 1) , does not fall
where e is the engine angular speed and Tm is the motor torque.
exactly on to a quantized value, then function interpolation is used
In addition, equality constraints are imposed so that the vehicle
to determine the values of J *k +1 ( x (k + 1)) in (6) as well as
always meets the speed and load demands of the specific driving
cycle. G ( x ( N )) in (5).

Since the above problem formulation does not impose a charge Despite the use of a simplified model, the long horizon of the
sustaining policy, the optimization algorithm tends to deplete the UDDSHDV driving cycle makes the direct application of the
battery in order to attain minimal fuel consumption. Hence, a final above algorithm computationally infeasible for todays technology.
state constraint on SOC should be imposed to account for Several approaches have been adopted to accelerate the
maintaining the energy of the battery and to achieve a fair computational speed [12]. From the velocity profile of the driving
comparison of fuel economy. A soft terminal constraint on SOC cycle, the vehicle model can be replaced by a finite set of
(quadratic penalty function) is added to the cost function as operating points parameterized by wheel torque and speed.
follows: Pre-computed look-up tables are constructed for recording next
states and instantaneous cost as a function of quantized states,
N 1
J = L ( x (k ), u (k )) + G ( x( N )) (4) control inputs, and operating points. Once these tables are built,
k =0 they can be used to update (6) in a very efficient manner [12].
The dynamic programming procedure produces an optimal,
where G ( x ( N )) = (SOC ( N ) SOC f )2 represents the penalty
time-varying, state-feedback control policy that is stored in a table
associated with the error in the terminal SOC; SOC f is the for each of the quantized states and time stages, i.e., u * ( x (k ), k ) ;
desired SOC at the final time; and is a weighting factor. this function is then used as a state feedback controller in the
simulations. It should be noted that dynamic programming creates
3.2 Model Simplification a family of optimal paths for all possible initial conditions. In our
case, once the initial SOC is given, the optimal policy will find an
The detailed HE-VESIM model is not suitable for the purpose of optimal way to bring the final SOC back to the terminal value
dynamic optimization because its complexity leads to low ( SOC f ) while achieving the minimal fuel consumption.
computation efficiency. Dynamic Programming is well-known to
require computations that grow exponentially with the number of
3.4 Simulation Results shifting thresholds, a new gear shift map determining when an
upshift or downshift event occurs was developed. It should be
Since the control policy determined by the dynamic programming mentioned that the optimal gear shift map for minimum fuel
algorithm is generated on the basis of the simplified model, the consumption can also be constructed through static optimization
control policy should be verified on the original complex model. ([10],[14]). Given an engine power and wheel speed, the best gear
Therefore, the optimal control policy found by DP was applied to position for minimum fuel consumption can be chosen based on
the original HE-VESIM model. The same driving cycle the steady-state engine fuel consumption map. It is found that the
(UDDSHDV) is used to evaluate the fuel economy. The terminal steady-state gear map nearly coincides with Figure 5. This is not
SOC constraint was selected as 0.57 and the initial SOC in the surprising since the electric motor is positioned after the
simulation is chosen to be 0.57 as well for the purpose of transmission, which means that the engine efficiency will
calculating fuel economy. Dynamic trajectories of the vehicle dominate the gear shifting policy. Finally, we apply the new gear
under the optimal control policy for the UDDSHDV cycle are shift logic (Figure 5) to the original rule-based control strategy.
shown in Figure 4. The difference between the desired vehicle Fuel economy is improved to 13.02 MPG as shown in Table 4.
speed (UDDSHDV) and the actual vehicle speed is within 2 mph.
The SOC trajectory starts at 0.57 and ends around 0.57 with a
120
small quantization error. Consequently, we have confidence that
1st gear
the optimal solutions based on the simplified model are reliable. 2nd gear
The fuel economy of the DP-optimized hybrid truck is 13.63 100 3rd gear
4th gear

Engine Power Demand (kW)

(MPG). Significant improvement has been achieved by the DP
algorithm as compared with values shown in Table 1. 80
Veh Spd (MPH)

60
UDDSHDV
40
Actual
20
40
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
0.58
20
SOC

0.56

0.54

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
100
Eng Pwr

Wheel Speed (rad/s)

50
Figure 5: Gear operating points of DP optimization
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
40
4.2 Power Split Control
Mot Pwr

20
0
-20 In this section, we explore how Power Split Control of the
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 preliminary rule-based strategy can be improved on the basis of
Time (sec)
dynamic programming. In Power Split Control, there are four
Figure 4: Simulation result of UDDSHDV cycle. The engine possible operating modes of splitting the power demand between
and motor power are given in kW the engine and motor: motor only mode, engine only mode, hybrid
mode (both the engine and motor), and recharge mode (the engine
offers additional power to charge the battery). Rules for switching
4. Improved Rule-Based Control Strategy between the different modes will be established by examining the
optimization results obtained from Section 3. The operating points
Although the dynamic programming approach provides an optimal displaying different operating modes are presented in the
solution for minimizing fuel consumption, the resulting control transmission input speed and power demand plane (see Figure 6).
policy is not implementable in real driving conditions because the
optimal policy requires knowledge of the future speed and load
profile of the vehicle. Nonetheless, analyzing optimal policies 12 0
h ybri d
determined through dynamic programming can provide insight e ng ine on ly
re c ha rg ing
into how the fuel economy improvement is achieved. An 10 0
mot or o nly
improved rule-based control algorithm is proposed in this section R eg ion A R eg ion B
Po we r Dea mn d (kW )

based on the investigation of the dynamic programming results. 80

4.1 Gear Shift Control 60

Determining the gear shift strategy is crucial to the fuel economy 40

of hybrid electric vehicles [13]. In the dynamic programming
scheme, gear shift is one of the control inputs to the system. It is 20
interesting to find out how the DP solution chooses the gear
position to improve fuel economy. From the optimization results, 0
the gear operation points are expressed on the engine power 0 50 10 0 15 0 20 0 25 0 30 0
T ra ns Input S pe ed (ra d/s )
demand vs. wheel speed plot (Figure 5). It can be seen that four
gear positions are separated into four regions and the boundary Figure 6: Operating points of DP optimization over
between two adjacent regions seem to represent better gear UDDSHDV cycle
shifting thresholds. After adding a hysteresis function to the
Some observations can be made as follows: to 0.57 from 0.52. Note also that negative motor power now
represents the recharging power supplied by the engine since there
z Use the motor alone when power demand is less than 15 is no regenerative braking.
kW.
z In region A, DP chooses to operate in the hybrid mode.

Veh Spd (MPH)

z The recharge mode rarely happens. 50 UDDSHDV
Actual
The low number of recharging events may imply that under the
0
current vehicle configuration it is not efficient to use engine power 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
to charge the battery, even if increasing the engines power would 0.56

SOC
move its operation to a more efficient region. As a result, we will 0.54
assume there is no recharging during Power Split Control, and 0.52
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
recharge will only occur under Recharging Control when SOC is 100

Eng Pwr
too low. The power distribution between the two prime movers in
50
the hybrid mode is determined next. We wish to extract from the
0
DP solution an optimal motor power model in the hybrid mode, 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
and then determine the engine power demand by subtracting the 10

Mot Pwr
0
motor power from the driver power demand. Clearly, optimal
-10
motor power may depend on many variables such as wheel speed,
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
engine speed, power demand, SOC, gear ratio, etc. For this reason, Time (sec)
a regression-based program was first used to assess which of these
variables were the dominant factors in determining motor power. Figure 7: Simulation results of UDDSHDV cycle without
It turned out that power demand, engine speed, and transmission regenerative braking
input speed were the critical factors. Motor power, as determined
by the DP algorithm, was then fit to these three factors with a Several rules were extracted from the optimization result as
Neural Network (NN), using two hidden layers with 3 and 1 follows (possible reasons are in parentheses):
neurons, respectively. The basic logic of this improved Power
Split Control is summarized in Table 2. After implementing the z Recharging happens only when wheel speed is greater
new Power Split Control rules, the fuel economy was further than 10 rad/s (better motor efficiency).
improved to 13.17 MPG as shown in Table 4. z Battery recharging power is normally smaller than 15kW
(better battery charging efficiency).
z The electric motor is the only power source to drive the
Table 2: Basic logic rules of new Power Split Control vehicle when power demand is less than 8 kW (avoid low
If Preq 15 kW, Pm = Preq Pe = 0 engine efficiency).
Else If Region A, Pm = Nnet1 ( Preq , trans , eng ) Pe = Preq Pm Further rules can be constructed as shown in Figure 8. A threshold
If Region B, Pm = 0 Pe = Preq , line is drawn to divide the plot into two regions. In region C,
there are few recharging events and most of the recharging events
If Pe > Pe _ max , Pe = Pe _ max Pm = Preq Pe happen in region D. We extracted all the recharging data in region
D in an attempt to determine a function for optimal recharging
power, using the method of Section 4.2. A regression program was
first used to find which factors should be used to build the model
4.3 Recharging Control
and then a Neural Network was used to fit the function. The basic
In the modified rule-based control algorithm, the thermostat- logic of this improved Recharging Control is summarized in Table
like charge sustaining strategy is retained, owing to robustness and 3. As shown in Table 4, fuel economy has been improved to 13.24
safety concerns. The recharging mode will turn on if the battery
SOC falls below the lower limit as described in the preliminary
120
rule-based control. However, requiring the engine to provide a hy brid
e ng ine only
constant recharging power level is not necessarily the most re c ha rging
100 moto r only
efficient way to recharge the battery. For this reason, when to
P ower De m an d (kW)

recharge and at what rate to recharge should be investigated to

80
improve the recharging control policy. Since the engine is rarely Re gio n C
used to recharge the battery from the previous optimization result, 60
the dynamic programming procedure was modified in an attempt
to observe an optimal recharging policy. First, we turned off the 40 Re g ion D
regenerative braking function in the dynamic programming routine.
In other words, all the braking power was supplied by the 20
hydraulic braking and hence there was no free energy secured
from the regenerative braking to recharge the battery. Furthermore, 0
after computing the optimal control policy via DP, the initial SOC 0 50 100 150 200 250
Tran s Input S pee d (rad/s )
was specified to be 0.52 for the purpose of simulating the situation
that SOC was too low and the battery needed to be recharged. Figure 8: Operating points of DP optimization over
The simulation result is shown in Figure 7. Note that the above UDDSHDV cycle without regenerative braking
represents the optimal policy for minimum fuel consumption
under the condition that the battery SOC has to be recharged back
MPG under this new Recharging Control policy. The gradual [3]Kim, C., NamGoong, E., and Lee, S., Fuel Economy
improvements in fuel economy can be seen in Table 4 as the new Optimization for Parallel Hybrid Vehicles with CVT, SAE
strategies were added one after another to the preliminary Paper No. 1999-01-1148.
rule-based algorithm.
[4]Paganelli, G., Ercole, G., Brahma, A., Guezennec, Y. and
Rizzoni, G., A General Formulation for the Instantaneous
Table 3: Basic logic rules of new Recharging Control Control of the Power Split in Charge-Sustaining Hybrid Electric
If Preq 8 kW, Pm = Preq Pe = 0 Vehicles. Proceedings of 5th Intl Symposium on Advanced
Vehicle Control, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.
Else If Region C or wheel < 10, Pe = Preq Pm = 0
[5]Johnson, V.H., Wipke, K.B. and Rausen, D.J., HEV Control
If Region D, Pm = Pch Pe = Preq + Pch , Strategy for Real-Time Optimization of Fuel Economy and
Pch = Nnet2 ( Preq , trans , eng ) Emissions, Proceedings of the Future Car Congress, April 2000,
SAE Paper No. 2000-01-1543.
If Pe > Pe _ max , Pe = Pe _ max Pm = Preq Pe
[6]Brahma, A., Guezennec, Y. and Rizzoni, G., Dynamic
Optimization of Mechanical/Electrical Power Flow in Parallel
Hybrid Electric Vehicles Proceedings of 5th Intl Symposium
Table 4: Fuel economy comparison over UDDSHDV cycle
on Advanced Vehicle Control, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.
Fuel Economy (MPG)
Conventional 10.63 [7]Zoelch, U., and Scroeder, D., Dynamic Optimization Method
Preliminary Rule-Based 12.56 for Design and Rating of the Components of a Hybrid Vehicle,
New Shift Control 13.02 International Journal of Vehicle Design, v19, n1, p1-13, 1998
New Power Split Control 13.17 [8]Assanis, D.N., Filipi, Z.S., Gravante, S., Grohnke, D., Gui, X.,
New Recharging Control 13.24 Louca, L.S., Rideout, G.D., Stein, J.L., Wang, Y., Validation
Dynamic Programming 13.63 and Use of SIMULINK Integrated, High Fidelity,
Engine-In-Vehicle Simulation of the International Class VI
Truck, SAE Paper No. 2000-01-0288
[9]Lin, C.C., Filipi, Z.S., Wang, Y., Louca, L.S., Peng, H., Assanis,
5. Conclusions D.N., and Stein, J.L., Integrated, Feed-Forward Hybrid Electric
Design of the energy management strategy for a hybrid electric Vehicle Simulation in SIMULINK and its Use for Power
vehicle with the aid of dynamic programming has the advantage of Management Studies, SAE Paper No. 2001-01-1334
optimizing the overall system efficiency. Dynamic Programming [10]Bowles, P. D., Modeling and Energy Management for a
provides engineers with fast quantitative analysis and further Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) with Continuously
understanding of the complex hybrid system. In this paper, the Variable Transmission (CVT), MS thesis, University of
problem of predicting the best fuel economy of a hybrid truck over Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 1999
a driving cycle was investigated. A Dynamic Programming (DP)
algorithm based on a simplified vehicle model was developed to [11]Bertsekas, D.P., Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control,
determine the optimal policy for hybrid operation. It was found Athena Scientific, 1995
that improvements in fuel economy were derived mainly from
[12]Jun-Mo Kang, Ilya Kolmanovsky and J.W. Grizzle
optimizing the gear-shifting policy and discharging/charging
Approximate Dynamic Programming Solutions for Lean Burn
schedule, and relieving the engine load through more efficient
Engine Aftertreatment, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference
motor/battery operation. By carefully analyzing the optimization
on Decision and Control, Phoenix, AZ, December 7-10, 1999
results, an improved rule-based control strategy was developed for
real driving application. [13]Lee, H.D., Sul, S.K., Cho, H.S., and Lee, J.M., Advanced
Gear Shifting and Clutching Strategy for Parallel Hybrid
Vehicle with Automated Manual Transmission, IEEE Industry
Acknowledgments Applications Conference, v3, 1998
This research is supported by the U.S. Army TARDEC under the [14]Soltic, P., and Guzzella, L., "Optimum SI Engine Based
contract DAAE07-98-C-R-L008. The work of J.W. Grizzle was Powertrain Systems for Lightweight Passenger Cars," SAE
supported in part by NSF contract IIS-9988695. Paper No. 2000-01-0827

References Appendix
[1]Baumann, B. M., Washington, G. N., Glenn, B. C., and Rizzoni, Table 5: Basic vehicle specification
G., Mechatronic Design and Control of Hybrid Electric DI Diesel Engine V6, 5.475L, 157HP/2400rpm
Vehicles, IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, v5 n 1 DC Motor 49kW
2000. p 58-72, 2000
Lead-acid Battery Capacity: 18Ah, Number: 25
[2]Farrall, S. D. and Jones, R. P., Energy Management in an Automatic Transmission 4 speed, GR: 2.59/1.68/1.06/0.75
Automotive Electric/Heat Engine Hybrid Powertrain Using Vehicle Total mass: 7258 kg
Fuzzy Decision Making, Proceedings of the 1993 International
Symposium on Intelligent Control, Chicago, IL, 1993