See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241638686

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Model Predictive Control Torque-Split Strategy

Incorporating Engine Transient Characteristics

Article  in  IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · July 2012

DOI: 10.1109/TVT.2012.2197767

CITATIONS READS
99 437

3 authors:

Fengjun Yan Junmin Wang

McMaster University University of Texas at Austin
52 PUBLICATIONS   589 CITATIONS    256 PUBLICATIONS   4,848 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kaisheng Huang
Tsinghua University
3 PUBLICATIONS   111 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Distributed Eletric Drive System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Junmin Wang on 30 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2458 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 6, JULY 2012

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Model Predictive Control

Torque-Split Strategy Incorporating Engine
Transient Characteristics
Fengjun Yan, Junmin Wang, Member, IEEE, and Kaisheng Huang

Abstract—This paper presents a model predictive control Nice,ini Engine initial speed (in revolutions per
(MPC) torque-split strategy that incorporates diesel engine tran- minute).
sient characteristics for parallel hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) Npt Powertrain speed (in revolutions per
powertrains. To improve HEV fuel efficiency, torque split between
the diesel engine and the electric motor and the decision as minute).
to whether the engine should be on or off are important. For Nmax _speed_start Engine idle speed (in revolutions per
HEV applications where the engines experience frequent transient minute).
operations, including start–stop, the effect of the engine tran- Powem,in Power into the EM (in watts).
sient characteristics on the overall HEV powertrain fuel economy Qc Battery energy capacity (in joules).
becomes more pronounced. In this paper, by incorporating an
experimentally validated real-time-capable transient diesel-engine RTor Torque-split ratio.
model into the MPC torque-split method, the engine transient SOClow_ lim Lower bound of SOC.
characteristics can be well reflected on the HEV powertrain su- SOCup_ lim Upper bound of SOC.
pervisory control decisions. Simulation studies based on an HEV SOCact Actual battery SOC.
model with actual system parameters and an experimentally vali- SOCini Initial value of battery SOC.
dated diesel-engine model indicate that the proposed MPC super-
visory strategy considering diesel engine transient characteristics tst Desired engine start-up time (in seconds).
possesses superior equivalent fuel efficiency while maintaining t Time (in seconds).
HEV driving performance. tk Time instant of the start of the kth predic-
Index Terms—Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), model predictive tion horizon.
control (MPC), torque split. td Time duration of the prediction horizon.
Tpt,req Required driving torque (in Newton-
N OMENCLATURE meter).
ΔNfilt Filtered first derivative of engine speed. TICE,req Required engine output torque (in
ηem (Tem,act , wem ) Electric motor (EM) power efficiency. Newton-meter).
FARlim Maximum fuel air ratio (FAR). Tem,req Required EM output torque (in Newton-
FARact Actual FAR. meter).
key_on Engine key status. Tem,act Actual EM output torque (in Newton-
K_start Speed-dependent multiplicative correc- meter).
tion factor. Vt Battery output voltage (in volts).
ṁair Engine transient air mass flow rate (in Vo Battery open-loop voltage.
kilograms per second). Rd Equivalent battery internal resistance.
ṁf Engine mass flow rate (in kilograms per
second). I. I NTRODUCTION
ṁf _corr_1 Engine fuel mass flow rate output after the

Nice,st
start-up correction.
Desired engine start-up speed (in revolu-
T HE HYBRID electric vehicle (HEV) is one of the
promising solutions for improving ground vehicle energy
efficiencies and emissions [1], [2], [15]. Typically, an HEV
tions per minute).
includes dual power sources, which are the internal combustion
engine (ICE) and the electric capacity device, respectively [10],
Manuscript received August 3, 2011; revised December 29, 2011 and [14]. The advantages of an HEV are mainly due to its capability
February 19, 2012; accepted April 26, 2012. Date of publication May 4, 2012;
date of current version July 10, 2012. The review of this paper was coordinated
of regenerative braking and the potential of optimizing the
by Dr. D. Cao. operations of its power sources [4], [5]. To fully utilize the
F. Yan and J. Wang are with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace second attribute, the power management strategy becomes a
Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 USA (e-mail:
[email protected]; [email protected]). critical issue in HEV control. In the upper level controller,
K. Huang is with the Department of Automotive Engineering, Tsinghua including the interpretation of the driver’s intention and gear-
University, Beijing 100084, China (e-mail: [email protected]). shifting mechanism, the required total torque for the powertrain
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. system can be determined based on the desired and actual
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2012.2197767 vehicle operating conditions, such as the vehicle speed and road
0018-9545/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE
YAN et al.: HEV MPC TORQUE-SPLIT STRATEGY INCORPORATING ENGINE TRANSIENT CHARACTERISTIC 2459

slope [6]. With information on the required total driving torque,

how to split it between the different power sources, such that
the efficiency of the overall HEV powertrain system can be
optimally achieved, is the main concern in power management
strategies. Along this line, several HEV power management
studies have been conducted from different viewpoints. For
steady-state HEV energy optimization, there are rule- or logic-
based techniques and efficiency-map-based optimization meth-
ods [11], [16], [17]. These methods are based on the energy
optimization at an instant time point. Considering the transient
features of the powertrain system during a specified time hori-
zon, several dynamic optimization methods were employed to
tackle this challenge in a more accurate but computationally
intensive way [7], [9], [12], [18], [19]. One of the effective op-
timization algorithms is dynamic programming (DP) [7], which
shows the effectiveness in global optimal energy management Fig. 1. Parallel HEV powertrain configuration.
control for HEVs, whereas the complexity of the algorithm may
raise some concerns for real-time online implementations.
In most of the aforementioned HEV powertrain torque-
split control strategies, the engine steady-state fuel efficiency
maps or equivalent functions have been employed to represent
the fuel consumption characteristics of the ICEs. While such
steady-state engine fuel efficiency maps are capable of approx- Fig. 2. HEV supervisory control structure schematic diagram.
imating the engine characteristics at steady state, they may con-
A. HEV Configuration
ceal opportunities of exploiting the ICE transient characteristics
for further improving the fuel economy of HEVs, particularly The parallel HEV configuration considered in this paper
those that experience frequent transient operations involving is shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen, this HEV configuration
engine start–stop events. In this paper, a model predictive consists of two power sources (i.e., motor/battery and a diesel
control (MPC)-based torque-split power management strategy engine). The energy flow(s) can be either from the battery,
is developed for parallel HEVs. The method explicitly con- the inverter, and the electric motor (EM) to the drive shaft
siders the diesel-engine crank-to-idle mechanism and the start- and/or from the diesel engine and clutch to the drive shaft.
up transient routine and incorporates a diesel-engine, transient, The HEV powertrain may operate under one of the following
fuel-consumption, and torque predictive model [3] that has three modes: 1) EM-only mode; 2) engine-only mode; and 3)
been newly developed for HEV control applications. The main hybrid mode. The functions of a HEV supervisory controller
contribution of this work lies in the systematic incorporation include the following: 1) determine the engine on/off and the
of an experimentally validated, real-time-capable, transient, desired engine torque; 2) control the state of the clutch (engage
diesel-engine, fuel-consumption, and torque predictive model or disengage); 3) send the desired motor torque signal to the
into the MPC-based HEV torque-split control strategy to enable EM control unit; and 4) select the gear-shifting mechanism.
controlling the torque-split ratio and determining the engine
on/off in a more fuel-efficient fashion.
B. HEV Control Scheme
The arrangement of this paper is given as follows. In
Section II, the preliminaries and problem formulation, including The high-level HEV power flows and control structure are
the HEV configuration, engine start-up transient routine inves- illustrated by the schematic diagram in Fig. 2. The HEV
tigation, and HEV overall control scheme, are described. The controller consists of the driver’s intention interpretation and
control-oriented subsystem models, including a diesel-engine the torque-split supervisory controller. The driver’s intention
transient model and a battery/motor model, are presented in interpretation part aims to simulate the driver’s decision on
Section III. The MPC methodology for torque-split strategy un- the accelerator and braking pedal positions based on the de-
der the proposed HEV configuration is designed in Section IV. sired and actual vehicle speeds and road slope. Here, a typi-
Simulation results and comparisons of the performances among cal proportional–integral controller was employed with kp =
three different types of HEV torque-split strategies are con- 0. 2 (h/km) and ki = 0. 01 (3600/km) as its P and I control
ducted in Section V, followed by conclusive remarks. parameters, respectively, to emulate the driver’s reaction with
respect to the vehicle speed tracking. The reference vehicle
speed is assumed to be known by the driver’s intention or
II. P RELIMINARIES AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
the specified driving cycle. The input is the error between the
In this section, aside from the descriptions of the HEV reference and actual vehicle speeds, and the output is the pedal
configuration and the control scheme, the diesel-engine smooth signal with a saturated scale from −1 to 1, which is interpreted
transient start-up routine design through a polynomial fitting as the accelerator pedal position when it is positive and the
method is also presented. brake pedal position when it is negative.
2460 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 6, JULY 2012

In the torque-split controller structure in Fig. 2, the de-

sired vehicle torque (positive or negative) can be determined
based on the accelerator or the brake pedal position. The
gear shifting was decided through a state-flow block, and
it depends on the current powertrain speed and the current
gear. The gear ratios from position 1 to position 6 are 7.05,
4.13, 2.52, 1.59, and 0.78, respectively. The upper shift
(1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 5-6, respectively) engine speeds are 200,
250, 300, 425, and 520 rad/s. The down-shift speeds (2-1, 3-2,
4-3, 5-4, and 6-5, respectively) are 120, 120, 120, 120, and
360 rad/s. The gear-shifting process also has a certain potential
in the overall HEV energy optimization. However, because this
study mainly focuses on the powertrain (diesel engine and EM)
torque-split strategy, the state-flow-based gear-shifting method
was utilized without loss of generality. With the gear ratio, the
required driving torque can be derived.
The torque-split control strategy starts from the availability Fig. 3. Comparison of three different engine accelerating cases.
of the required driving torque information. How to efficiently 2) Nice,st (tst ) = Npt (tst ), where Npt refers to the known
distribute the overall required driving torque to the diesel engine powertrain speed, i.e., the desired engine speed at the end
and EM on the basis of the vehicle operating conditions, the of the start-up process.
state of energy storage device (battery), and the powertrain 3) Ṅice,st (tst ) = Ṅpt (tst ).
operating conditions is the main concern in this study and Thus, according to preceding boundary conditions, coef-
will be addressed in the MPC-based torque-split strategy part ficients of the cubic function in (1) satisfy the following
of Section IV. Since the diesel-engine start–stop mechanism equations:
is considered in this method, the outputs of the torque-split
controller are the engine key-on status and the torque-split ratio. a4 = Nice,ini (2)
a1 t3st + a2 t2st + a3 tst + a4 = Npt (tst ) (3)
C. Engine Start-Up Mechanism Investigation 3a1 t2st + 2a2 tst + a3 = Ṅpt (tst ). (4)

With the start–stop mechanism in a HEV configuration, the To be noted, according to (2)–(4), there is one more degree
engine may start and stop at a much higher frequency than that of freedom in terms of selecting the polynomial coefficients,
for conventional vehicles, and consequently, the fuel consump- which is the initial engine acceleration
tion during each engine start-up may become nontrivial due to
the accumulative effect. During an engine start-up process in Ṅice,st (0) = Ṅice,ini (5)
the parallel HEV powertrain, the engine needs to be accelerated
as an indication of the initial engine torque at the beginning
from idle speed to smoothly match with the motor/clutch-out
of the accelerating process. With the boundary conditions
shaft speed and couple with the powertrain output shaft via a
1–3 being satisfied, by properly selecting this initial engine
clutch within the desired engine start-up time duration. While
speed acceleration, the engine start-up fuel consumption can
the fuel consumption from cranking to idle is quite constant
be optimized. For instance, Fig. 3 shows the comparisons
under engine warmed-up conditions, which is attributed to the
among different selections of the engine initial accelerations
engine dynamics and fuel efficiency characteristics, different
and the corresponding fuel consumptions. Assume that the
engine speed accelerating trajectories (from idle to the desired
required boundary conditions are the following: tst = 3 (s),
speed) may result in different fuel consumptions for the start-
Nice,ini = 520 (r/min) (idle speed), Npt (tst ) = 1500 (r/min),
up process. To achieve smooth engine start-up and engagement
and Ṅpt (tst ) = 100 (rad/s2 ). In Fig. 3, Ṅice,ini were selected
with the clutch-out shaft, a cubic polynomial function in the
as 50 rad/s2 (Trace 1), 100 rad/s2 (Trace 2), and 150 rad/s2
following form can be generated for the desired engine speed
(Trace 3), respectively. As can be seen, among these three, the
during the start-up process:
optimal accelerating trajectory in terms of fuel consumption for
Nice,st (t) = a1 t3 + a2 t2 + a3 t + a4 , for t ≤ tst (1) the engine idle-to-desired speed process is Trace 1.
To be noted, the simulation results plotted in Fig. 3 were
where t refers to time; tst is the engine start-up time duration; obtained by simulations based on an experimentally validated
ai , i = 1, . . . , 4 are the polynomial coefficients to be deter- real-time-capable transient diesel-engine model recently devel-
mined; and Nice,st is the desired start-up engine speed. oped in [3].
To meet the speed smoothness requirement of the engine
start-up process (from idle to the desired speed), three boundary III. C ONTROL -O RIENTED M ODELS
conditions need to be satisfied. FOR H YBRID E LECTRIC V EHICLE S UBSYSTEMS
1) Nice,st (0) = Nice,ini , where Nice,ini refers to the engine The control-oriented models for the HEV system include
initial speed (i.e., idle speed). a transient diesel-engine model, an EM model, and a battery
YAN et al.: HEV MPC TORQUE-SPLIT STRATEGY INCORPORATING ENGINE TRANSIENT CHARACTERISTIC 2461

model. Such models are computationally efficient and real-time experimental tests in crank-to-idle conditions, and cond is the
capable for integration into the MPC algorithm. condition described in

f (ΔNfilt > 0 & N < Nmax _speed_start ), TRUE
cond =
A. Transient Diesel-Engine, Fuel-Consumption, and Torque else, FALSE.
Predictive Model (7)

In most of the HEV control designs, engine fuel mass flow Here, ΔNfilt is obtained by low-pass filtering the first derivative
rates were estimated through steady-state engine maps, whose of the engine speed, and Nmax _speed_start is a constant value of
inputs are engine speed and the required torque and output 520 r/min as the idle speed for the diesel engine. The calibration
is the fuel mass flow rate. While such steady-state engine of the crank-to-idle correction factor was performed through
maps can represent engine characteristics to a large extent, an optimization process for minimizing the difference between
they may conceal opportunities of further improving the HEV the measured instantaneous fueling mass flow rate trace and the
fuel economy by explicitly considering the effect of engine transient mass flow rate output of the model in several crank-
transient operating characteristics, which is more pronounced to-idle traces.
for some HEV applications where the engines experience fre- Aside from the crank-to-idle correction, the smoke limits
quent transient operations including start–stop. However, due in diesel engine transient operations were also specifically
to the complexity and nonlinearities of diesel engine air-path addressed in the model, as indicated in [3]. The following ex-
and fuel-path dynamics and interactions, accurately describing pression was developed for describing the diesel engine smoke
the diesel engine transient instantaneous fuel consumption and limits during transient operations:
torque, which are the two most important quantities for HEV ⎧
⎨ if (FARact
powertrain control, can be quite challenging. Due to the closed- ṁf = > FARlim (N, Treq )) , FARlim (N, Treq ) · ṁair
loop control efforts by the engine control unit (ECU), the ⎩
else, ṁf _corr_1 .
input–output dynamics of the overall engine system, which (8)
consists of a diesel engine and its ECU, become simpler and
more predictable. By utilizing this feature of the overall engine Here, ṁf _corr_1 is the modeled fuel mass flow rate output
system, in the authors’ recent work [3], a real-time-capable, after the crank-to-idle correction, ṁair is the transient air mass
diesel-engine, instantaneous-fuel-consumption, and torque pre- flow rate, FARlim is a map of the maximum FAR obtained
dictive model was developed and experimentally calibrated by the experimental data of the diesel engine, and FARact =
for a medium-duty diesel engine, which fits with the HEV ṁf _corr_1 /ṁair . Details on the derivation of the diesel engine
powertrain application considered in this paper. By integrating air-path fresh air mass flow rate ṁair are neglected here; see
the overall engine system steady-state maps and first-order [3].
dynamics, the model can accurately predict the diesel engine In this paper, a simplified first-order dynamic model in [3]
fuel consumption and torque at both steady-state and transient was utilized for torque prediction, where the transient torque
operations including the start-up and shutdown processes. The Torquetr can be estimated as follows:
simplicity of the overall engine system dynamics also makes the d(Torquetr )
model computationally efficient for real-time implementations. τtorque (Treq )· +Torquetr = Torquess (N, ṁf ). (9)
dt
While the details regarding the aforementioned diesel-engine
model and its transient driving-cycle experimental validation Here, the steady-state torque Torquess can be illustrated as a
are available in [3], several transient features of the model function of engine speed N and fuel flow rate ṁf as
are highlighted here. Owing to the complexity of the real  
diesel engine crank-to-idle process, involving the fuel injection, Torquess = (b1 + b2 N + b3 N 2 ) 1 − b4 · ṁbf5
ignition, and combustion at relatively low engine speeds, the 120
·ṁf · LHVf · − Tfr (N ) (10)
accurate fuel consumption cannot be effectively indicated in the N · Vd
steady-state fueling maps, which are typically obtained based
where b1 to b5 were calibrated by experimental data, LHVf is
on extrapolated values for normal engine operating conditions.
the lower heating value of the fuel, Vd is the engine displace-
The techniques in [3] gave an effective and computationally
ment, and Tfr is the friction torque (illustrated as a polynomial
efficient solution through a transient engine start-up model by
function of engine speed). The time constant τtorque (Treq ) in
multiplying a set of factors at different engine speeds. Here,
(9) was modeled in the following logic:
the transient model correction factors were obtained through  
several real engine crank-to-idle tests. The transient fueling if(ΔTreq > 0), τ3
τtorque (Treq ) = (11)
correction can be described by the following formulas: else, τ4

if (cond = TRUE), K_start(N )· ṁf _ss where τ3 and τ4 depend on the diesel engine experimental data.
ṁf _corr_1 = (6)
else, ṁf _ss . The engine-out torque cannot exactly match the required
torque by the upper level torque-split strategy, with the
Here, ṁf _ss is the steady-state fuel flow rate on the basis of considerations of engine-out torque steady-state limitations
steady-state engine operation map, K_start is an engine-speed- and transient dynamics. As shown in Fig. 7, the engine-out
dependent multiplicative correction factor identified from the torques, which were derived by the aforementioned engine
2462 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 6, JULY 2012

IV. M ODEL P REDICTIVE C ONTROL M ETHODOLOGY FOR

H YBRID E LECTRIC V EHICLE
T ORQUE -S PLIT C ONTROL
The HEV supervisory torque-split controller aims to gener-
ate three output signals to the engine controller and the EM
controller, i.e., the engine key-on signal, the required engine
torque (interpreted as the pedal position with respect to the
engine speed), and the required EM torque, respectively. The
Fig. 4. EM and battery model scheme.
required diesel engine torque and the required EM torque are
calculated as follows:

TICE,req = max(0, Tpt,req × RTor ) (16)

Tem,req = Tpt,req − TICE,req (17)

where Tpt,req is the required total torque, TICE,req is the re-

quired engine output torque, Tem,req is the required EM output
torque, and RTor is the torque-split ratio. To be noted, the
Fig. 5. Resistive Thevenin equivalent circuit model. driving cycle is assumed to be known in advance in this paper,
and the required powertrain torque can be therefore calculated
torque estimation methods, do not exactly match the required
through the vehicle acceleration. Accurately predicting the
engine torque. This is also true in real practice, where the
future powertrain torque demands may require a substantial
precise engine torque prediction and control for diesel engine
amount of information/signals such as the traffic/road condi-
are still not feasible. Here, the remaining torque differences can
tions and dedicated prediction methods in real time and is
be compensated through the EM and driver’s accelerator/brake
not specifically considered in this paper, whose focus is on
control (proportional–integral–derivative (PID) upper level
utilizing the MPC scheme to systematically incorporate engine
control in this paper).
transient characteristics in the HEV powertrain supervisory
control.
B. EM and Battery Models
The EM and battery model layout is illustrated in Fig. 4. The A. MPC Algorithm Brief Review
actual EM output torque Tem,act was derived by applying the
In this section, the MPC algorithm is briefly reviewed. The
maximal and minimal EM torque limitations after the required
MPC method has the capabilities in dealing with the opti-
EM torque Tem,req . These limitations are functions of the
mization problems subject to constraints [13]. The scheme of
current EM speed (powertrain-out shaft speed) based on the EM
the MPC algorithm is designed based on the system control-
design.
oriented model and the cost functions that are constructed from
The power into the EM Powem,in can be calculated as
the insight into system characteristics and the optimization
Tem,act · wem requirements. The MPC algorithm consists of three main steps:
Powem,in = . (12)
ηem (Tem,act , wem ) 1) Calculate the optimal inputs in a prediction horizon to mini-
mize the cost function subject to the constraints; 2) implement
Here, ηem (Tem,act , wem ) is the EM power efficiency, which the first portion of the derived optimal inputs to the physical
is a function of the EM torque and speed. plant; and 3) move the entire prediction horizon forward and
The battery is modeled as a resistive Thevenin equivalent repeat step 1. Whether the MPC algorithm can find the optimal
circuit model [8], as in Fig. 5 solutions heavily relies on two aspects, i.e., the accuracies of the
control-oriented models and the proper selections of the input
Vt = Powem,in · Rd (13)
initial conditions. The former is because the accuracies of the
Vo − Vt control-oriented models indicate the prediction accuracy of the
Id = (14)
Rd calculations in the prediction horizon. The latter is because
the optimization problems in the prediction horizon are com-
where Vt is the battery output voltage; and Rd is the equivalent
monly nonlinear, particularly for the cases where the cost
battery internal resistant, which is a function of the battery
functions are nonconvex, such that only local minima may be
SOC. Vo is the battery open-circuit voltage. Then, the actual achieved. In the following HEV MPC designs, these two issues
battery SOC SOCact can be calculated as
will be considered.

t
Id (τ )dτ
SOCact (t) = SOCini − 100 · 0 (15)
Qc B. MPC Algorithm for HEV Torque-Split Control
where SOCini is the initial value of battery SOC, and Qc refers For the HEV torque-split control problem, the main objective
to the overall battery energy capacity. here is to minimize the overall equivalent fuel consumption.
YAN et al.: HEV MPC TORQUE-SPLIT STRATEGY INCORPORATING ENGINE TRANSIENT CHARACTERISTIC 2463

Thus, the cost function derived in the kth prediction horizon is Here, RTor (t) indicates the torque-split ratio. With this torque-
expressed as follows: split ratio, the torque values for the diesel engine and the EM
can be calculated by (16) and (17).
+tp
tk
The outputs in the control-oriented model (22) are
J(k) = α1 ṁf (t)dt
tk
y = [ṁf (t), SOC(t), key_on(t)] . (24)
+ α2 [SOC(tk ) − SOC(tk + tp )]
With the outputs of the control-oriented model, the cost func-
+ α3 [1 − key_on(tk + tp )] (18)
tion (18) can be calculated in each prediction horizon.
For computational simplicity, the control-oriented model was
subject to
discretized with the sample time of 1 s. The prediction horizon
is selected as 10 s, and the implementation horizon is selected as
SOClow_ lim < SOC < SOCup_ lim (19)
1 s. Thus, the input vector in (23) for the kth prediction horizon
was discretized as
where SOClow_ lim and SOCup_ lim are the lower and upper
bounds of SOC, respectively. key_on ∈ {0, 1} refers to the uk = [u(tk ), u(tk + 1), . . . , u(tk + tp )] (25)
diesel engine key position, i.e., “1” represents the engine “on”
and “0” represents the engine “off”; tk is the time instant of the where u(tk +i) = [key_on(tk +i), RTor (tk +i)], i = 1, . . . , tp .
start of the kth prediction horizon; and tp is the time duration As a local optimization method, the selections of the initial
of the prediction horizon. input values at each step are crucial for the MPC algorithm. The
As can be seen from the preceding definition, the cost initial input value selections follow four criteria.
function consists of three terms: 1) the diesel engine fuel 1) In the first prediction horizon, the initial input values are
consumption; 2) the equivalent energy cost of battery; and key_on = 1 and RTor = 1.
3) the penalty of the engine key-off status at the end of the 2) Supposing that the optimal inputs for the kth prediction
prediction horizon. αi , i = 1, 2, 3 are the weighting parameters. horizon was calculated as
The first two terms indicate the overall equivalent fuel cost of 
the powertrain. Therefore, the following relation holds: uopt
k = uopt (tk ), uopt (tk + 1), . . . , uopt (tk + tp ) (26)
α2 then the initial input value for the (k + 1)th prediction
= Csoc_fuel (20)
α1 horizon is selected as

where Csoc_fuel is a multiplication factor, indicating the equiv- uini
k+1 = uopt (tk + 1), uopt (tk + 2), . . .
alent ratio between SOC and fuel consumptions. The third uopt (tk + tp ), uopt (tk + tp ) . (27)
term in the cost function α3 [1 − key_on(tk + tp )] accounts for
the fuel penalty at the end of the prediction horizon, i.e., if 3) If the initial diesel engine speed in the (k + 1)th predic-
key_on(tk + tp ) = 0, then the engine needs to start up in the tion horizon is zero, which indicates that the diesel engine
future and thus pay the fuel cost associated with it. α3 can be is off, then another set of initial input values was selected,
selected through the following equation: where the initial values of key_onini = 0 and RTor ini
= 0.
4) Following criterion 3, with the optimal solutions by cri-
α3
= mfuel_start (21) teria 2 and 3, compare the corresponding cost functions,
α1 and choose the better one (with a smaller cost function
value) as the control input. Here, u_k is calculated based
where mfuel_start is the nominal fuel consumption for the diesel
on a “Trust-Region Reflective” optimization method by
engine start-up process, which includes the engine start from
using the command fmincon in Matlab/SIMULINK.
stop to idle and from idle to launch. The former was illustrated
by a transient compensation model in Section III-A, and the
latter was described by a polynomial speed approximation in V. T ORQUE -S PLIT C ONTROL A LGORITHM E VALUATIONS
Section III-C. In this section, the effectiveness of the proposed MPC
To be noted, the penalty of the diesel engine initial key- method is evaluated through a calibrated HEV simulator with
off status in the prediction horizon, i.e., key_on(tk ) = 0, was system parameters from an actual HEV city bus and an experi-
indirectly taken into account through the transient start-up fuel mentally calibrated medium-duty diesel-engine model [3].
cost and thus is not contained in the cost function (18).
For this cost function (18), the control-oriented model can be
A. Torque-Split Control Algorithms
represented as follows:
To show the effectiveness of the proposed diesel-engine
y = f (u(t), t) . (22) transient-model-based MPC methodology in torque-split con-
trol, three torque-split control methods were proposed for
The inputs in (22) are the comparison purpose. Method 1 is the proposed MPC-
based method with a transient diesel-engine model, and the
u(t) = [key_on(t), RTor (t)] . (23) simulation results were noted with “-TR” in Figs. 6 and 7.
2464 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 6, JULY 2012

Fig. 7. Engine torque predictions in the three methods.

Fig. 6. Vehicle speed tracking performance by the three torque-split strategies.

Method 2 employs the same MPC design method as the first

one but neglects the diesel engine transient corrections in the
control-oriented model. Here, it is referred to as the steady-state
MPC method and noted with “-SS” in the following figures.
In Method 3, a typical PID-based SOC regulation strategy was
utilized, which aims at maintaining the SOC at a desired value.
The simulation results were noted as “-PID” in the following
figures. On the basis of the error between the desired and
actual SOC, the required EM torque was calculated by a PID
controller. Then, the required engine torque was derived as the
difference between the required total driving torque and the EM
torque. Method 1 and Method 2 both include the diesel engine
start–stop mechanism, and in Method 3, the engine key position
was always kept “on.”
Fig. 8. Engine speed and torque by Method 1.
B. Torque-Split Control Algorithms
A city-driving-like predescribed driving cycle, which in-
cludes several stops, was used for comparing the three different
HEV control strategies. Fig. 6 shows the vehicle speed tracking
performances by the three different HEV control methods. As
the results indicate, all the three control methods can fulfill the
vehicle speed tracking performance requirement well. In this
context, the equivalent fuel consumptions among these three
methods can be further evaluated and compared.
Fig. 7 shows the required engine torque values that were
derived by the torque-split strategies and the actual torque
outputs from the engine model for each of the three methods,
i.e., the transient MPC, the steady-state MPC, and the SOC PID
control methods, respectively. To be noted, due to the simplified
engine torque estimation and the engine torque dynamics, the
engine output torque values cannot be exactly the same as the
required ones. By the EM torque output and the driver model
Fig. 9. Engine key status and torque-split ratio by Method 1.
(a PID control law on the basis of vehicle speed error), the
torque differences between the required one (by the torque- be seen, with the start–stop mechanism, the diesel engine was
split strategy) and the actual engine torque output (by the on only when the required engine torque was assigned by the
simplified engine torque estimation method in Section III-A) torque-split controller. This way, the equivalent fuel consump-
can be compensated. tion can be effectively minimized subject to the battery SOC
Fig. 8 shows the diesel engine operating performances, in- constraints. Fig. 9 shows the engine key status and the torque-
cluding the engine speed and engine output torque. As can split ratio calculated by Method 1.
YAN et al.: HEV MPC TORQUE-SPLIT STRATEGY INCORPORATING ENGINE TRANSIENT CHARACTERISTIC 2465

Fig. 12. Cost function comparison for Method 1 and Method 2.

Fig. 10. Engine speed and torque by Method 2.

Fig. 13. Engine speed and torque by Method 3.

Fig. 11 shows the key status and the torque-split ratio. The
benefit of transient fuel correction can also be quantitatively
indicated through the cost function calculation in the imple-
mentation horizon, which can be calculated by substituting tp
by tk+1 in (18). The implementation cost function comparisons
are shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 11. Engine key status and torque-split ratio by Method 2.
Fig. 13 shows the diesel engine operation under the PID-
based SOC regulation method (Method 3). Under this strategy,
Fig. 10 shows the engine operating conditions when control the engine was kept “on,” even though it was not required to
Method 2 was employed. (Fig. 11 shows the engine key sta- generate any power. This caused the low fuel efficiency when
tus and torque-split ratio correspondingly.) In this torque-split the engine was idling and did not provide torque for quite a long
method, the engine start-up was based on a steady-state map. period. The low limit on the engine speed curve is the engine
The discrepancies between the steady-state fueling-map-based idle speed.
fuel mass flow rate prediction and the actual fuel consumption In Fig. 14, the fuel consumptions and the battery SOCs
caused inefficient usage of the engine. Compared with control for the three torque-split methods are compared. The battery
Method 1, the engine start–stop frequencies are much higher in SOCs of all the three control methods were within the upper
some circumstances where the usage of the engine is not nec- and lower bounds and ended up close to each other. For the
essary. This is due to the underestimations of fuel costs in the fuel cost, Method 3 shows the worst performance. The steady-
diesel engine crank-to-idle and start-up processes by the steady- state MPC method (Method 2) shows better fuel efficiency
state map-based prediction method. The other type of inefficient improvement than Method 3. However, due to the transient fuel
operation can be observed around the 273th second (as indi- consumption mismatch during engine transient operations and
cated by the ellipse region in Fig. 10). Due to the mismatched the transient fuel estimation error, the equivalent fuel efficiency
diesel engine start-up fuel consumption prediction, the engine is still not optimal. Method 1 shows the best fuel efficiency
speed did not catch up with the desired speed (powertrain-out among the three. Compared with Method 1, the increase in
speed) to couple with the powertrain for contributing the torque fuel consumption by Method 2 is mainly due to two facets:
output and stopped again under the consequent control law. In The first one is the higher engine start–stop frequency, which
this case, the inefficiency is apparent as the engine started up elevated the crank-to-idle and start-up fuel cost, and the second
(fuel was consumed) but did not contribute useful torque output comes from improper calculation of optimal solution due to
to the vehicle. the inaccuracy of the engine control-oriented model used in the
2466 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 61, NO. 6, JULY 2012

R EFERENCES
[1] B. M. Baumann, G. N. Washington, B. C. Glenn, and G. Rizzoni, “Mecha-
tronic design and control of hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatron., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 58–72, Mar. 2000.
[2] K. Berkel, T. Hofman, B. Vroemen, and M. Steinbuch, “Optimal control
of a mechanical hybrid powertrain,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 61,
no. 2, pp. 485–497, Feb. 2012.
[3] F. Chiara, J. Wang, C. B. Patil, M. Hsieh, and F. Yan, “Development and
experimental validation of a control-oriented diesel engine model for fuel
consumption and brake torque predictions,” Math. Comput. Modell. Dyn.
Syst., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 261–277, Jun. 2011.
[4] L. Fang and S. Qin, “Optimal control of parallel hybrid electric vehicles
based on theory of switched system,” Asian J. Control, vol. 8, no. 3,
pp. 274–280, Sep. 2006.
[5] Y. Gurkaynak, A. Khaligh, and A. Emadi, “State of the art power manage-
ment algorithms for hybrid electric vehicles,” in Proc. Veh. Power Prop.
Conf., 2009, pp. 388–394.
[6] T. K. Lee, B. Adornato, and Z. S. Filipi, “Synthesis of real-world driv-
ing cycles and their use for estimating PHEV energy consumption and
charging opportunities: Case study for Midwest/US,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Fig. 14. Fuel costs and battery SOCs in the three torque-split control Technol., vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 4153–4163, Nov. 2011.
strategies. [7] C. Lin, H. Peng, J. W. Grizzle, and J. Kang, “Power management strategy
for a parallel hybrid electric truck,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
prediction. These two aspects can be clearly observed in Fig. 14 vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 839–849, Nov. 2003.
[8] D. Linden, Handbook of Batteries. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995.
and the corresponding parts in Figs. 8 and 10. The first aspect [9] J. Liu and H. Peng, “Modeling and control of a power-split hybrid vehi-
can be realized in the zoomed-in subplot in Fig. 10. As can be cle,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1242–1251,
seen, the fuel consumption in Method 2 was larger than that Nov. 2008.
[10] J. S. Martinez, D. Hissel, M.-C. Pera, and M. Amiet, “Practical control
in Method 1. Meanwhile, the corresponding zoomed-in part in structure and energy management of a testbed hybrid electric vehicle,”
Fig. 10 shows that there are higher frequency engine start–stop IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 4139–4152, Nov. 2011.
events in Method 2 than those in Method 1. The second aspect [11] G. Paganelli, G. Ercole, A. Brahma, Y. Guezenne, and G. Rizzoni,
“General supervisory control policy for the energy optimization of
is shown in Fig. 12. By comparing the implementation cost charge-sustaining hybrid electric vehicles,” JSAE Rev., vol. 22, no. 4,
functions, the benefit of Method 1 in terms of lower cost in pp. 511–518, 2001.
transient can be qualitatively revealed. Comparing the discrep- [12] P. Pisu and G. Rizzoni, “A comparative study of supervisory control strate-
gies for hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
ancies between these two regions in Fig. 14, it can be concluded vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 506–518, May 2007.
that the transient fuel corrections dominated the fuel efficiency [13] S. J. Qin and T. A. Badgwell, “A survey of industrial model predictive
difference, particularly when the engine was working on the control technology,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 11, no. 2003, pp. 733–764,
2003.
load transition region and the engine start–stop mechanism was [14] G. Rizzoni, L. Guzzella, and B. M. Baumann, “Unified modeling of hybrid
involved. electric vehicle drivetrains,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron., vol. 4, no. 3,
It should be noted that the quantitative benefits of the al- pp. 246–257, Sep. 1999.
gorithm will be dependent on the vehicle driving cycles. As [15] F. R. Salmasi, “Control strategies for hybrid electric vehicles: Evolution,
classification, comparison, and future trends,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
indicated in the preceding simulation studies, it is expected vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 2393–2404, Sep. 2007.
that the benefit will be more pronounced when the vehicle [16] N. Schouten, M. Salman, and N. Kheir, “Fuzzy logic control for parallel
experiences more transient operations. hybrid vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 10, no. 3,
pp. 460–468, May 2002.
[17] N. Schouten, M. Salman, and N. Kheir, “Energy management strate-
VI. C ONCLUSION gies for parallel hybrid vehicles using fuzzy logic,” Control Eng. Pract.,
vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 171–177, 2003.
In this paper, an MPC-based HEV torque-split control strat- [18] A. Sciarretta, M. Back, and L. Guzzella, “Optimal control of parallel
hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 12,
egy, which incorporates an experimentally validated diesel- no. 3, pp. 352–363, May 2004.
engine transient fuel-consumption and torque predictive model, [19] H. Zhang, Y. Zhu, G. Tian, Q. Chen, and Y. Chen, “Optimal energy
has been proposed for HEV powertrain supervisory control management strategy for hybrid electric vehicles,” presented at the SAE
World Congr. Exhib., Detroit, MI, 2004, Paper 2004-01-0576.
applications. Comparative simulation studies based on a city-
driving-like cycle have been conducted for three different
HEV supervisory control strategies. Results have indicated that,
while all three methods can satisfy the vehicle velocity tracking
requirement, the MPC-based method can improve the HEV fuel Fengjun Yan received the B.E. degree in control sci-
ence and engineering from Harbin Institute of Tech-
economy. Moreover, the incorporation of the transient diesel- nology, Harbin, China, in 2004 and the M.S. degree
engine model in the MPC algorithm can further benefit the in power engineering and engineering thermophysics
HEV fuel economy by taking into account the effect of diesel from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 2006.
He is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree
engine transient characteristics, which is more pronounced in with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
HEV applications where vehicle/engine experiences frequent Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
transient operations including start–stop events. The control His research interests include dynamic system
modeling, nonlinear system control and estima-
method assumes that the vehicle future powertrain torque de- tion, and diesel engine advanced combustion mode
mands are available from the given driving cycles. controls.
YAN et al.: HEV MPC TORQUE-SPLIT STRATEGY INCORPORATING ENGINE TRANSIENT CHARACTERISTIC 2467

Junmin Wang (M’06) received the B.E. degree Kaisheng Huang received the B.E. degree in auto-
in automotive engineering and the M.S. degree in motive engineering, the M.S. degree in power ma-
power machinery and engineering from Tsinghua chinery and engineering, and the Ph.D. degree in
University, Beijing, China, in 1997 and 2000, respec- power engineering and engineering thermophysics
tively, the second and third M.S. degrees in electrical from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 1993,
engineering and mechanical engineering from the 1996, and 2007, respectively.
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in 2003, and He was an Assistant Professor and Lecturer
the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engineering from the with the Department of Automotive Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin in 2007. Tsinghua University, in 1996 and 1998, respec-
He has five years of full-time industrial research tively, and has been an Associate Professor since
experience (May 2003–August 2008) with South- 2003. He is an author or coauthor of more than
west Research Institute, San Antonio, TX. Since September 2008, he has been 40 peer-reviewed papers in journals and conference proceedings. His research
an Assistant Professor with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace interests include control, modeling, estimation, and diagnosis of dynamical
Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus. He is an author/coauthor systems, specifically for engine, powertrain, after treatment, hybrid, and electric
of more than 110 peer-reviewed papers in journals and conference proceedings. ground and underground mining vehicles, as well as intelligent unmanned
He is the holder of ten U.S. patents. His research interests include control, vehicles and transportation.
modeling, estimation, and diagnosis of dynamical systems, specifically for Dr. Huang received the Scientific and Technological Progress Award from
engine, powertrain, after treatment, hybrid, flexible fuel, alternative/renewable the Chinese Automotive Industry (second prize) in 2006 and 2011.
energy, (electric) ground vehicle, transportation, energy storage, sustainable
mobility, and mechatronic systems.
Dr. Wang is a member (as the Liaison for IEEE Control Systems Society)
of the IEEE Transportation Electrification (Electric Vehicle) Steering Com-
mittee (since 2012). He has been the Chair (2010–2012) of the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) International Control and Calibration Committee
and the Secretary (2010–2012) of the American Society of Mechanical Engi-
neers (ASME) Automotive and Transportation Systems Technical Committee.
He serves as an Associate Editor for the IEEE T RANSACTIONS ON V EHIC -
ULAR T ECHNOLOGY and on the Conference Editorial Board of the ASME
Dynamic Systems and Control Division, the American Control Conference, and
the ASME Dynamic Systems and Control Conference. He received the SAE
Ralph R. Teetor Educational Award, the National Science Foundation CAREER
Award, The Ohio State University Lumley Research Award in 2012, the SAE
International Vincent Bendix Automotive Electronics Engineering Award in
2011, the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Program Award in
2009, and the Oak Ridge Associated Universities Ralph E. Powe Junior Faculty
Enhancement Award in 2009.

View publication stats