ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435

www.elsevier.com/locate/jfranklin

Application of genetic algorithm for optimization of

control strategy in parallel hybrid electric vehicles
Morteza Montazeri-Gh, Amir Poursamad, Babak Ghalichi
Systems Simulation and Control Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Iran University of Science and Technology, Narmak, Tehran, Iran
Received 7 February 2006; accepted 7 February 2006

Abstract

This paper describes the application of the genetic algorithm for the optimization of the control
parameters in parallel hybrid electric vehicles (HEV). The HEV control strategy is the algorithm
according to which energy is produced, used, and saved. Therefore, optimal management of the
energy components is a key element for the success of a HEV. In this study, based on an electric assist
control strategy (EACS), the tness function is dened so as to minimize the vehicle engine fuel
consumption (FC) and emissions. The driving performance requirements are then considered as
constraints. In addition, in order to reduce the number of the decision variables, a new approach is
used for the battery control parameters. Finally, the optimization process is performed over three
different driving cycles including ECE-EUDC, FTP and TEH-CAR. The results from the computer
simulation show the effectiveness of the approach and reduction in FC and emissions while ensuring
that the vehicle performance is not sacriced.
r 2006 The Franklin Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Genetic algorithm; Optimization; Hybrid electric vehicle; Fuel consumption; Emissions

1. Introduction

Conventional powertrain systems driven by internal combustion (IC) engines have

several disadvantages that negatively affect fuel economy and emissions. In particular, IC
engines are typically overdesigned by roughly 10 times to meet vehicle driving performance

Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 21 77491228; fax: +98 21 7240488.

E-mail addresses: montazeri@iust.ac.ir (M. Montazeri-Gh), amirpoursamad@yahoo.com (A. Poursamad),
b_ghalichi@yahoo.com (B. Ghalichi).

0016-0032/$30.00 r 2006 The Franklin Institute. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jfranklin.2006.02.015
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435 421

such as acceleration and starting gradeability [1]. Oversizing the engine moves the cruising
operating point away from the optimal operation [2]. Moreover, an engine cannot be
optimized for all the speed and load ranges under which it must operate.
Hybrid electron vehicle (HEV) is projected as one of the solutions to the worlds need for
cleaner and more fuel-efcient vehicles. HEVs encompass two energy converters to
generate the power required to drive the vehicle and to operate on-board accessories. Most
typically, the architecture of these vehicles includes an IC engine with an associated fuel
tank and an electric machine with its associated energy storage system (battery).
For a HEV to be as efcient as it is possible, proper management of its energy elements
is required. This task is performed by HEV control strategy [310]. In other words, the
control strategy is the algorithm according to which energy is produced, used, and saved.
Control strategy for HEV is usually aimed at several simultaneous objectives. The main
goal is the minimization of the vehicle fuel consumption (FC) while also attempting to
minimize engine emissions and maintaining driving performance. Due to the complex
nature of HEV, a control strategy based on the engineering intuition frequently fail to
achieve satisfactory overall system efciency, and therefore an optimization algorithm
must be used. An important characteristic of this optimization problem is that the
powertrain system characteristics are highly nonlinear and non-continuous that may have
a large number of local optimums. Thus, the gradient-based optimization methods may
not converge to a global solution, and therefore a non-gradient based evolutionary
optimization method is proposed.
In this paper, application of genetic algorithm (GA) is described for optimization of the
control strategy in parallel HEV. The objective of the optimization is dened to minimize
the engine FC and emissions within standard criteria. Vehicle performance requirements
are also dened as constraints. However, as GA is not directly applicable to constrained
optimization problems, the constraints are handled by using penalty functions. In
addition, based on an electric assist control strategy (EACS), a new approach is used for
battery control parameters in order to reduce the number of the decision variables. The
optimization process is then performed for three different driving cycles including ECE-
EUDC (European cycle), FTP (US unied cycle) and TEH-CAR. TEH-CAR is a driving
cycle that is developed based on the experimental data collected from the real trafc
condition. The simulation results are nally obtained to investigate the effectiveness of the
approach and the effect of driving cycle on the optimization of HEV control strategy.

2. HEV congurations

There are generally two accepted basic congurations for HEVs including series and
parallel. A dual or multi-mode type is also considered as a third type that combines the
features of both the series and parallel hybrids [11].
The series HEV conguration incorporates a fuel converter (IC Engine), a generator,
battery, and an electric motor as shown in Fig. 1. In this case, the fuel converter does not
drive the vehicle shaft directly. Instead, it converts the mechanical power into the electrical
energy using a generator. The electric energy is also saved in the energy storage system (i.e.
battery). In this conguration, the torque required to drive the vehicle is supplied by the
electric motor. However, in parallel HEV, both electric motor and IC engine may deliver
power to the vehicle wheels as shown in Fig. 2. The electric motor may also be used as a
generator to charge the battery by either the regenerative braking or absorbing the excess
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
422 M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435

Fuel Engine

Generator Battery Motor Wheels

Fig. 1. Series HEV conguration.

Fuel Engine
Transmission Wheels
Motor/
Battery
Generator

Fig. 2. Parallel HEV conguration.

power from the engine when its output is greater than that required to drive the wheels.
One of the advantages of the parallel HEV over the series type is that the parallel HEV
requires a smaller engine and a smaller electric motor to provide the same performance.
This feature makes the parallel HEV more suitable for passenger cars where the series
conguration is usually used for heavy duty vehicles. In the combined series-parallel
hybrid, the conguration involves an additional mechanical link compared with the series
hybrid and also an additional generator compared with the parallel hybrid that make the
series-parallel HEV a relatively more complicated and costly version.

3. Parallel HEV control strategy

As mentioned in previous section, a parallel HEV incorporates two power drives

including IC engine and electric motor. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the parallel
HEV control strategy to determine how to distribute the drivers required torque between
the IC engine and electric motor. For negative torque request (car braking), the engine
torque is zero and the sum of the motor and brake torques would be equal to the drivers
request. However, for positive torque requests, the sum of the engine and motor torques
should be equal to the drivers request.
Several control strategies have been employed for parallel HEV among which EACS [8]
is the mostly used. Using an EACS, as implied by its name, the main energy provider is IC
engine and the electric motor is used as IC engine assistant.
EACS employs the electric motor when the IC engine either does not operate efciently
or the requested power is beyond its maximum deliverable torque. On the other hand,
when the battery state of charge (SOC) is low, the engine will provide excess torque to be
used by the motor to charge the batteries (the motor functions as a generator). The EACS
methodology is illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4. In addition, Table 1 describes the variables that
are usually dened for an EACS [8].
As shown in Figs. 3 and 4, the engine is turned off in some cases. In these cases, the
electric motor takes the responsibility to supply the whole required torque. As shown in
Fig. 3, when the SOC is higher than its low limit (LSOC), if the required speed is less than a
certain value, the engine will turn off. This specic speed is called the electric launch speed
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435 423

Fig. 3. Electric assist control strategy, SOC4LSOC.

Fig. 4. Electric assist control strategy, SOCoLSOC.

Table 1
Parameters of electric assist control strategy

Parameter Description

LSOC Lower limit on battery state of charge

HSOC Upper limit on battery state of charge
VL Vehicle speed below which vehicle operates as a zero emissions vehicle
Toff Minimum torque threshold when SOC4LSOC (a fraction of engine maximum torque)
Tmin Minimum torque threshold when SOCoLSOC (a fraction of engine maximum torque)
Tch Torque load on engine to recharge the battery pack when engine is on

(VL). Furthermore, if the required torque is less than a cutoff torque (Toff
Tmax) that is
referred to as off-torque fraction, the engine will also turn off.
Fig. 4 illustrates the case when the battery SOC is lower than its low limit (LSOC). In this
case, an additional torque (Tch) is required from the engine to charge the battery. This
additional charging torque is proportional to the difference between SOC and the average
of LSOC and HSOC. Engine charging torque is only requested when the engine is on. The
engine torque is prevented from being below a certain fraction of the maximum engine
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
424 M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435

torque (Tmin
Tmax) that is referred to as min-torque fraction. This strategy is designed
to prevent the engine from operating at an inefcient low torque condition.
The control strategy parameters highly affect the car FC, emissions, battery charge and
vehicle performance. Therefore, an optimization problem is formulated and solved in this
study to achieve the optimal control parameters.

4. Optimization problem formulation

Two different approaches may be considered for handling such optimization problems
[13,14] as follows:

1. weighted aggregation of all the targets into a single objective function to be optimized,
2. optimization of one of the targets by itself and imposition on the other targets of
appropriate constraints to be satised.

In this work, a combination of the above methods is implemented to achieve the

optimization targets. In this approach, some of the optimization targets are aggregated
into an objective function and the others are dened as constraints.
As mentioned previously, the HEV control strategy is aimed at several simultaneous
targets such as minimization of FC and exhaust emissions (HC, CO and NOx), charge
sustaining requirement and maintaining driving performance. These aspects are often in
conict with each other. For instance, the typical operating points in a spark ignition (SI)
engine map is shown in Fig. 5 [8]. It is clear from this gure that the minimum FC does not
necessarily result in the minimum emissions, implying the need for a tradeoff solution.
The main target is minimization of FC and also minimization of exhaust emissions such
as CO, HC and NOx. Therefore, the objective function is dened as follows:
____ ____ ____ ____
Jx w1 FC w2 HC w3 CO w4 NOx (1)
in which all variables are normalized to the corresponding lower bound limits. The limits
for the vehicle emissions have been extracted from the standards used as Type Approval
tests. w1 to w4 are also dened as the weighting factors in order to be able to investigate the
effect of different objectives on the optimization results.
Engine Torque (Nm)

Low Low
FC HC Low
Low NO x
CO

Engine Speed (rpm)

Fig. 5. Operating points for an SI engine.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435 425

In addition, the vehicle performance requirements are dened as constraints. In this

study, the following PNGV passenger car constraints [15] are used to ensure that the
vehicle performance is not sacriced during optimization:

 Gradeability: 88.5 km/h at 6.5% grade for 20 min,

 Acceleration time: time for 097 km/hp12 s, time for 6497 km/hp5.3 s, time for
0137 km/hp23.4 s,
 Maximum speed: X137 km/hr,
 Maximum acceleration: X0.5gs,
 Distance in 5 s: X42.7 m.

The optimal selection of parameters for control strategy is then formulated as a

constrained optimization problem as follows:

Minimize Jx s:t: hi xp0; i 1; 2; . . . ; ncon , (2)

x2X

where x is a solution to the problem including a vector of the control strategy para-
meters within the solution space X. X denes the lower and upper bounds of the
parameters. Moreover, J(x) is the objective function and each inequality hi(x)p0
represents one of the nonlinear constraints discussed above. Finally, ncon is the number
of constraints.

5. Application of GA to the optimization of HEV control strategy

GA, rst formulated by Holland [16], is the probabilistic global search and optimization
method that mimics the metaphor of natural biological evolution. GA operates on a
population of individuals (potential solutions), each of which is an encoded string
(chromosome), containing the decision variables (genes).
The structure of a GA is composed by an iterative procedure through the following ve
main steps [17,18]:

1. creating an initial population P0,

2. evaluation of the performance of each individual pi of the population, by means of a
tness function,
3. selection of individuals and reproduction of a new population,
4. application of genetic operators: crossover and mutation,
5. iteration of steps 24 until a termination criterion is fullled.

To apply GA to the optimization of HEV control strategy, a tness function is required in

order to evaluate the status of each solution. In this study, the tness function is considered
to be the inverse of the objective function described by Eq. (1). Using this approach, the
driving performance requirements are then considered as constrained. However, as GA is
directly applicable only to unconstrained optimization problem, the constraints are
handled by using penalty functions that penalize the infeasible solutions by reducing their
tness values [19,20]. Here a penalty value is added into the violating solutions taking the
number of violated constraints and their distance from feasibility into account. In this case,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
426 M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435

the tness function will take the following form:

1 X
ncon
F x ai
Pi x, (3)
Jx i1

where F(x) is the tness function, J(x) is the objective function, Pi(x) is the penalty function
related to the ith constraint and ai is a positive constant value that determines the degree to
which the ith constraint is penalized, normally called penalty factor. These factors are
treated as constant here and their values are obtained by trial and error.
The denition and the number of the decision variables are critical for the optimization
process, especially from simulation run-time point of view. In this study, a new approach is
used for the denition of the battery control parameters in order to reduce the number of
the control parameters. In this approach, the EACS variables, described in Table 1, are
rstly considered as the decision variables. The battery control parameters are then
reduced by the denition of a target value, TSOC. The battery SOC target value is dened
using the battery specications as shown in Fig. 6. This target value is selected to be as
close as possible to the minimum charge resistance. Once the target value is determined,
both LSOC and HSOC are determined by only one variable, i.e. DSOC through the
optimization process as follows:

T SOC 12H SOC LSOC ,

LSOC T SOC  DSOC ; H SOC T SOC DSOC . 4

50

Discharge
45 Charge

40
Resistance (Ohms)

35

30

25

20
SOC SOC

15

10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
SOC

LSOC TSOC HSOC

Fig. 6. Battery control parameters dened on the specication curves.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435 427

Using this approach, the dimension of the solution space is reduced to ve. Therefore,
the following ve variables are coded in a chromosome using a binary coding scheme
consisting of the following genes:
x DSOC ; V L ; T ch ; T off ; T min . (5)
To start the algorithm, an initial population of individuals (chromosomes) is dened.
A tness value is associated with each individual, expressing the performance of the related
solution with respect to a xed objective function to be minimized.
Reproduction is the process of generating a new population from the current
population. Selection is the mechanism for selecting the individuals with high tness over
low-tted ones to produce the new individuals for the next population. The variant used
here is the roulette wheel method in which the probability to choose a certain individual is
proportional to its tness:
f p
Probpi is selected Pn i .
k1 f pk

Crossover is the method of merging the genetic information of two individuals (parents) to
produce the new individuals (children). In the simplest case, this process is realized by
cutting two chromosomes at a randomly chosen position and swapping the two tales, as is
visualized below:
Parents

Children


100
11110 Crossover
! 100
10010



101
10010 101
11110:

Mutation is a probabilistic random deformation of the genetic information for an

individual. This process can be handled by altering each bit randomly with a small
probability, as depicted below:
mutated bit
Mutation
10011110 ! #
100110100:
The positive effect of mutation is the preservation of genetic diversity and that the local
maxima can be avoided.
Following the evaluation of the tness of all chromosomes in the population, the genetic
operators are applied to produce a new population. The selection function adopted here is
normalized geometric selection [21] and the genetic operators employed are the crossover
and binary mutation as described earlier.

6. Driving cycles

Driving cycles are dened as the test cycles used to standardize the evaluation of
the vehicles fuel economy and emissions. Driving cycles are speedtime sequences
that represent the trafc conditions and driving behavior in a specic area. Driving pat-
terns may vary from city to city and from area to area. Therefore, the use of an available
driving cycle obtained for the certain cities or countries are not necessarily applicable for
other cities.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
428 M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435

100
(a)

50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

150
(b)
speed (km/h)

100

50

0
0 500 1000 1500

100
(c)

50

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
time (sec)

Fig. 7. FTP, ECE-EUDC and TEH-CAR driving cycles.

Table 2
Driving cycle characteristic parameters

TEH-CAR FTP ECE-EUDC

Time (s) 1797 2477 1225

Dist. (km) 13.42 17.67 10.87
Vmax (km/h) 83.93 90.72 119.3
Vavg (km/h) 26.87 25.67 31.91
Acc max (m/s2) 1.71 1.47 1.05
Dece max (m/s2) 2.71 1.47 1.38
Acc avg (m/s2) 0.45 0.51 0.54
Dece avg (m/s2) 0.56 0.57 0.78
Idle time (%) 16.81 38.8 27.67
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435 429

In this optimization study, in order to evaluate the tness function, three driving cycles
have been used. The most important cycles are shown in Figs. 7a and b including the
currently used cycles in United States (FTP cycle) and European community (ECE-EUDC
cycle). A recent driving cycle is also developed for the city of Tehran based on the
experimental data collected from the real trafc conditions. This driving cycle is named
TEH-CAR and is shown in Fig. 7c [12].
A driving cycle consists of a mixture of driving modes including idle, cruise, acceleration
and deceleration. The maximum, minimum and average speeds are also considered as the
cycle characteristics. Table 2 compares the parameters of these driving cycles. Signicant
variations may be expected depending on the type of the driving cycle.

7. Simulation results and analysis

The advanced vehicle simulator (ADVISOR) [22] is used for simulation study.
ADVISOR employs a combined forward/backward facing approach for the vehicle
performance simulation. The simulation parameters as well as the vehicle components
model have been set for a parallel HEV with the following specications:

 Body mass: 592 kg.

 Rolling resistance coefcient: 0.009.
 Body aerodynamic drag coefcient: 0.335.
 Vehicle front area: 2 m2.
 Wheel radius: 0.282 m.
 Gearbox: ve speed manual gearbox with following gear ratios; 2.84, 3.77, 5.01, 5.57
and 13.45. It should be noted that nal drive ratio has been included in gearbox ratio.
Efciency of gearbox is assumed 95%.
 IC engine: 41 kW SI engine, obtained by scaling of Geo Metro 1.0 l SI engine.
 Electric motor: 13.5 kW AC motor, obtained by scaling of Westinghouse AC induction
motor with a maximum power output of 75 kW.
 Energy storage system: 14 12 V Hawker Genesis valve-regulated lead-acid battery,
model 12V26Ah10EP.
 Catalyst converter: close-coupled conventional converter for an SI engine.

The size of the engine and electric motor and the number of battery modules are obtained
based on a previous study through a scaling technique using a GA approach [23].

Table 3
Step size and range of variation for design variables

Lower bound Upper bound Step size

DSOC 0 0.31 0.01

VL (m/s) 0 15 1
Toff 0 0.31 0.01
Tmin 0.25 0.88 0.01
Tch (Nm) 4 35 1
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
430 M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435

The step size and the range of the variations for each decision variable are determined
based on the desired performance and characteristics of components, as illustrated in
Table 3.
In order to compromise between FC and emissions, all weights in objective function can
be set equal. This version of weights leads to a solution for the multi-objective optimization
that is called tradeoff solution in this study.

TEH-CAR
1.498

1.496

1.494

1.492
0 10 20 30 40

FTP
1.358
Value of objective

1.356

1.354

1.352
0 10 20 30 40

ECE-EUDC
1.71

1.705

1.7

1.695
0 10 20 30 40
Generation number

Fig. 8. Trace of objective minimization over generations.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435 431

The population of GA is initialized by 40 random individuals selected from the whole

solution space. In addition, the maximum number of generations is set to be 40. Fig. 8
shows the optimization process history for the three abovementioned driving cycles.
The optimal parameters obtained for the EACS based on three driving cycles are
summarized in Table 4. In addition, the optimized FC and emissions of HEV over the
three driving cycles are illustrated in Table 5. As it can be seen, the optimal parameters are
different for the three driving cycles. It implies that an optimal control strategy for a
driving pattern is not necessarily optimal for other driving cycles.
Moreover, to evaluate the effectiveness of the approach, the default parallel HEV
dened in ADVISOR is simulated over the three driving cycles. The default parallel HEV
was previously [23] used as the baseline for the component sizing optimization. Fig. 9

Table 4
Parameters obtained by GA for three cycles

TEH-CAR FTP ECE-EUDC

LSOC 0.59 0.59 0.58

HSOC 0.71 0.71 0.72
VL (m/s) 3 1 4
Tch (N m) 27 24 30
Toff 0.02 0.03 0.03
Tmin 0.38 0.37 0.59

Table 5
Fuel consumption and emissions for three cycles

TEH-CAR FTP ECE-EUDC

FC (1/100 km) 6.0992 5.3483 5.9582

HC (g/km) 0.3137 0.2555 0.3511
CO (g/km) 1.1864 1.033 1.4836
NOx (g/km) 0.1815 0.2063 0.2207

2.5
Optimal Default
2
Value of objective

1.5

0.5

0
TEH-CAR FTP ECE-EUDC

Fig. 9. The objective values for three driving cycles.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS
432 M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435

Table 6
Reduction for TEH-CAR cycle

Optimal HEV Reduction (%) w.r.t. default HEV

FC (1/100 km) 6.0992 27.65

HC (g/km) 0.3136 18.35
CO (g/km) 1.1864 25.30
NOx (g/km) 0.1815 35.35

Table 7
Denition of weights for optimization

w1 w2 w3 w4

Tradeoff 1 1 1 1
FC-targeted 1 0 0 0
HC-targeted 0 1 0 0
CO-targeted 0 0 1 0
NOx targeted 0 0 0 1

Table 8
Optimal parameters for FC-targeted optimization

LSOC HSOC VL Tch Toff Tmin

Tradeoff 0.59 0.71 3 27 0.02 0.38

FC-targeted 0.58 0.72 7 24 0.19 0.45
HC-targeted 0.57 0.73 7 14 0.07 0.25

compares the objective values for two vehicles over the three driving cycles. In addition,
the reduction in the FC and emissions for the optimal HEV over Tehran driving cycle is
illustrated in Table 6.
Another feature of this optimization problem is the effect of weighting factors on the
optimal parameters. For instance, when the main objective is the minimization of the
vehicle FC, the weight of FC in Eq. (1) is set to 1 and the weights of emissions will be set to
zero. This case is called FC-targeted optimization problem. More versions of weights are
also dened as HC-targeted, CO-targeted and NOx-targeted. The denition of weights for
different versions is illustrated in Table 7.
In order to study the sensitivity of the optimal control parameters due to the weight
selection, the optimal parameters obtained over the Tehran driving cycle for the FC-
targeted and HC-targeted optimizations are compared with those of tradeoff solution in
Table 8. As it is clear, the optimal parameters obtained for FC-targeted and HC-targeted
optimizations are different from the optimal parameters obtained for tradeoff solution.
These results show that although LSOC and HSOC are not very sensitive to weight
denition, the other parameters are changed signicantly due to the weight selection and
objective denition.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435 433

Table 9
Fuel consumption and emissions for different weights in objective function

FC HC CO NOx Obj.

Tradeoff 6.0992 0.3137 1.1864 0.1815 1.4937

FC-targeted 5.4857 0.3186 1.2935 0.2503 1.6122
HC-targeted 5.6676 0.3066 1.1782 0.2062 1.4968

FC Targetted HC Targetted CO Targetted NOx Targetted

1.2

1
Normalized value

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
FC HC CO NOx

Fig. 10. Normalized values of FC and emissions for optimization with different weights.

In addition, in order to study the optimization of the FC on the optimization of the

other objectives (emissions), Table 9 compares the results of the FC-targeted with the HC-
targeted and also with the results from the initial (tradeoff) objective optimizations. These
results show that the use of the FC-targeted optimization does not lead to the
minimization of the emissions. This implies that the optimization of the HEV FC is not
necessarily associated with the optimization of the vehicle emissions.
Furthermore, in order to study the behavior of the HEV FC and emissions with
respect to the weights, the optimization problem has been solved for all weight
selection versions including FC-targeted, HC-targeted, CO-targeted and NOx-targeted.
The normalized values of FC and emissions for these variations are compared in
Fig. 10. As it can be seen in this gure, the behavior of CO emission is not consistent
with other emissions and FC. These results show that the amount of FC, HC and NOx
obtained for the CO-targeted optimization is greater than all other versions of weights.
This implies that the optimization of the CO emission does not provide a tradeoff
minimization between the HEV FC and other emissions. However, the optimization
of the other objectives (HC, for instance) leads to a compromised amount of FC, CO and
NOx. To justify these results, it should be mentioned that, in the HEV powertrain
conguration, the overall amounts of FC and emissions do not merely depend on the
operating points of the IC engine. This is due to the fact that the efciency of other
elements such as batteries and electric motors would also affect the overall amount of HEV
FC and emissions.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
434 M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435

8. Conclusion

Application of genetic algorithm is described for the optimization of the control strategy
in parallel HEV. The optimization problem is formulated for an electric assist control
strategy (EACS) in order to meet the minimum fuel consumption and emissions while
maintaining the vehicle performance requirements. A novel approach is also employed for
battery control parameters in order to reduce the number of the EACS decision variables.
Finally, the optimization is performed over three driving cycles, and the effect of driving
pattern on the optimization of HEV control strategy is investigated. The optimization is
also performed for different objective functions. The results show the impact of the driving
pattern on the HEV optimal control parameters. Moreover, the simulation results reveal
that the optimal parameters are not identical for different objective functions, implying
that the minimization of the fuel consumption is not necessarily associated with the
optimization of emissions.

References

[1] T. Moore, Tools and strategies for hybrid electric drivesystem optimization, SAE Paper 961660, 1996.
[2] Y. Gao, K. Rahman, M. Ehsani, Parametric design of the drive train of an electrically peaking hybrid
(ELPH) vehicle, SAE Paper 970294, 1997.
[3] J. Van Mierlo, Views on hybrid drivetran power management, Proceedings of the 17th International
ElectricVehicle Symposium, CD-ROM, 2000.
[4] B.M. Baumann, et al., Mechatronic design and control of hybrid electric vehicles, IEEE/ASME Trans.
Mechatronics 5 (1) (2000) 5872.
[5] S.D. Farrall, R.P. Jones, Energy management in an automotive electric/heat engine hybrid powertrain
using fuzzy decision making, Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium on Intelligent Control,
Chicago, IL.
[6] C. Kim, E. NamGoong, S. Lee, Fuel economy optimization for parallel hybrid vehicles with CVT, SAE
Paper No. 1999-01-1148.
[7] G. Paganelli, et al., A general formulation for the instantaneous control of the power split in charge-
sustaining hybrid electric vehicles, Proceedings of Fifth International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle
Control, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.
[8] V.H. Johnson, K.B. Wipke, D.J. Rausen, HEV control strategy for real-time optimization of fuel economy
and emissions, Proceedings of the Future Car Congress, SAE Paper No. 2000-01-1543, April 2000.
[9] A. Brahma, et al., Dynamic optimization of mechanical electrical power ow in parallel hybrid electric
vehicles, Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Advanced Vehicle Control, Ann Arbor, MI,
2000.
[10] U. Zoelch, D. Scroeder, Dynamic optimization method for design and rating of the components of a hybrid
vehicle, Int. J. Vehicle Des. 19 (1) (1998) 113.
[11] K.T. Chau, Y.S. Wong, Overview of power management in hybrid electric vehicles, Energy Convers.
Manage. 43 (2002) 19531968.
[12] M. Montazeri-Gh, M. Naghizadeh, Development of car drive cycle for simulation of emissions and fuel
economy, 15th European Simulation Symposium Proceedings, Delft, Netherlands, October 2003.
[13] Y. Sawaragi, H. Nakayama, T. Tanino, Theory of Multiobjective Optimization, Academic Press, Orlando,
FL, 1985.
[14] S. Martorell, S. Carlos, A. Sanchez, V. Serradell, Constrained optimization of test intervals using a steady-
state genetic algorithm, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 67 (2000) 215232.
[15] T.C. Moore, A.B. Lovins, Vehicle design strategies to meet and exceed PNGV goals, Electric and Hybrid
VehiclesImplementation of Technology SAE Special Publication SP-1105, 1995, pp. 79121.
[16] J.H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Articial System, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI,
1975.
[17] C. Houck, J. Joines, M.G. Kay, A genetic algorithm for function optimization: a Matlab implementation,
NCSU-IE TR 9509, 1995.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
M. Montazeri-Gh et al. / Journal of the Franklin Institute 343 (2006) 420435 435

[18] K.F. Man, K.S. Tang, S. Kwong, Genetic algorithms: concepts and applications, IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron.
43 (5) (1996).
[19] J. Richardson, M. Palmer, G. Liepins, M. Hilliard, Some guidelines for genetic algorithms with penalty
functions, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, 1989.
[20] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic Algorithms+Data Structures Evolution Programs, AI Series, Springer,
New York, 1992.
[21] J. Joines, C. Houk, On the use of non-stationary penalty functions to solve constrained optimization
problems with genetic algorithms, IEEE International Symposium on Evolutionary Computation, Orlando,
FL, 1994, pp. 579584.
[22] T. Markel, A. Brooker, T. Hendricks, V. Johnson, K. Kelly, B. Kramer, M. OKeefe, S. Sprik, K. Wipke,
ADVISOR: a systems analysis tool for advanced vehicle modeling, J. Power Sources 110 (2002) 255266.
[23] M. Montazeri-Gh, A. Poursamad, Application of genetic algorithm for optimal design of hybrid electric
vehicles, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference of Iranian Society of Mechanical Engineers,
ISME2005, May 2005, Iran.