This paper presents a direct mathematical approach for determining the state of charge (SOC)-dependent equivalent cost factor in hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) supervisory control problems using globally optimal dynamic programming (DP). It therefore provides a rational basis for designing equivalent cost minimization strategies (ECMS) which achieve near optimal fuel economy (FE). The suggested approach makes use of the Pareto optimality criterion that exists in both ECMS and DP, and as such predicts the optimal equivalence factor for a drive cycle using DP marginal cost. The equivalence factor is then further modified with corrections based on battery SOC, with the aim of making the equivalence factor robust to drive cycle variations. Adaptive logic is also implemented to ensure battery charge sustaining operation at the desired SOC. Simulations performed on parallel and power-split HEV architectures demonstrate the cross-platform applicability of the DP-informed ECMS approach. Fuel economy data resulting from the simulations demonstrate that the robust controller consistently achieves FE within 1% of the global optimum prescribed by DP. Additionally, even when the equivalence factor deviates substantially from the optimal value for a drive cycle, the robust controller can still produce FE within 1–2% of the global optimum. This compares favorably with a traditional ECMS controller based on a constant equivalence factor, which can produce FE 20–30% less than the global optimum under the same conditions. As such, the controller approach detailed should result in ECMS supervisory controllers that can achieve near optimal FE performance, even if component parameters vary from assumed values (e.g., due to manufacturing variation, environmental effects or aging), or actual driving conditions deviate largely from standard drive cycles.

References

References
1.
Serrao
,
L.
,
Onori
,
S.
, and
Rizzoni
,
G.
,
2011
, “
A Comparative Analysis of Energy Management Strategies for Hybrid Electric Vehicles
,”
ASME J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control
,
133
(
3
), p.
031012
.10.1115/1.4003267
2.
Kim
,
D.
,
Peng
,
H.
, and
Bucknor
,
N. K.
,
2011
, “
Supervisory Control of Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicles for Fuel and Emission Reduction
,”
ASME J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control
,
133
(
6
), p.
061010
.10.1115/1.4002708
3.
Lin
,
C.
,
Peng
,
H.
,
Grizzel
,
J. W.
, and
Kang
,
J.
,
2003
, “
Power Management Strategy for a Parallel Hybrid Electric Truck
,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
,
11
(
6
), pp.
839
849
.10.1109/TCST.2003.815606
4.
Sundstrom
,
O.
, and
Guzzella
,
L.
,
2009
, “
A Generic Dynamic Programming Matlab Function
,”
Control Applications, (CCA) & Intelligent Control, (ISIC), IEEE
, pp.
1625
1630
.
5.
Sciarretta
,
A.
,
Back
,
M.
, and
Guzzella
,
L.
,
2004
, “
Optimal Control of Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicles
,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
,
12
(
3
), pp.
352
363
.10.1109/TCST.2004.824312
6.
Kim
,
N.
,
Cha
,
S.
, and
Peng
,
H.
,
2011
, “
Optimal Control of Hybrid Electric Vehicles Based on Pontryagin's Minimum Principle
,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
,
19
(
5
), pp.
1279
1287
.10.1109/TCST.2010.2061232
7.
Serrao
,
L.
,
Onori
,
S.
, and
Rizzoni
,
G.
,
2009
, “
ECMS as a Realization of Pontryagin's Minimum Principle for HEV Control
,”
2009 American Control Conference, IEEE
, pp.
3964
3969
.
8.
Paganelli
,
G.
,
Delprat
,
S.
,
Guerra
,
T. M.
,
Rimaux
,
J.
, and
Santin
,
J. J.
,
2002
, “
Equivalent Consumption Minimization Strategy for Parallel Hybrid Powertrains
,”
Vehicular Technology Conference, IEEE
, Vol.
4
, pp.
2076
2081
.
9.
Musardo
,
C.
,
Rizzoni
,
G.
, and
Staccia
,
B.
,
2005
, “
A-ECMS: An Adaptive Algorithm for Hybrid Electric Vehicle Energy Management
,”
Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, and the European Control Conference
, pp.
1816
1823
.
10.
Liu
,
J.
, and
Peng
,
H.
,
2008
, “
Modeling and Control of a Power-Split Hybrid Vehicle
,”
IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.
,
16
(
6
), pp.
1242
1251
.10.1109/TCST.2007.903073
11.
Arata
,
J.
,
Leamy
,
M.
,
Meisel
,
J.
,
Cunefare
,
K.
, and
Taylor
,
D.
,
2011
, “
Backward-Looking Simulation of the Toyota Prius and General Motors Two-Mode Power-Split HEV Powertrains
,”
SAE Int. J. Eng.
,
4
(
1
), pp.
1281
1297
.10.4271/2011-01-0948
12.
Litvin
,
F. L.
,
Fuentes
,
A. F.
,
Vecchiato
,
D.
, and
Gonzales-Perez
,
I.
,
2004
, “
New Design and Improvement of Planetary Gear Trains
,” E-14576, University of Illinois, Chicago.
13.
Meisel
,
J.
,
2006
, “
An Analytic Foundation for the Toyota Prius THS-II Powertrain With a Comparison to a Strong Parallel Hybrid-Electric Powertrain
,” SAE Technical Paper No. 2006-01-0666.
14.
Bellman
,
R.
,
1957
,
Dynamic Programming
,
Princeton University Press
,
Princeton, NJ
.
15.
Ahn
,
K.
,
Cho
,
S.
, and
Cha
,
S. W.
,
2008
, “
Optimal Operation of the Power-Split Hybrid Electric Vehicle Powertrain
,”
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part D (J. Automob. Eng.)
,
222
, pp.
789
800
.10.1243/09544070JAUTO426
16.
Li
,
S.
,
Kolmanovsky
,
I. V.
, and
Galip Ulsoy
,
A.
,
2012
, “
Distributed Supervisory Controller Design for Battery Swapping Modularity in Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
,”
ASME J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control
,
134
(
4
), p.
041013
.10.1115/1.4006214
17.
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology and the MathWorks
,
2009
, “MBSD Lecture.”
18.
Argonne National Laboratory
,
2002
, Powertrain System Analysis Tool-kit (PSAT) Vers. 6.2, “A Flexible, Reusable Model for Simulating Advanced Vehicles.”
You do not currently have access to this content.