Predictive Cruise Control

for Heavy Duty Vehicles

T.W.T. Ivens

CST 2010.057

Master traineeship report

Supervisor:
dr. ir. T. Hofman (TU/e)
Coach:
ir. M.F.M. Pesgens (DAF Trucks N.V.)

Eindhoven University of Technology

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Automotive Engineering Science group

Eindhoven, August 2010

Samenvatting

In de energiehuishouding van voertuigen wordt normaal gezien het werkpunt van de motor ve-
randerd om brandstof te besparen. Dit geldt zowel voor hybride als conventionele voertuigen.
Dit kan echter ook gerealiseerd worden door de vermogensvraag op sommige momenten aan
te passen. Dit kan gedaan worden door voertuigeigenschappen te veranderen (bijvoorbeeld
de aerodynamica) of door de (gewenste) voertuigsnelheid aan te passen. Dit verslag gaat uit
van de laatste optie en geeft inzicht in het potentieel van Predictive Cruise Control (PCC)
met betrekking tot brandstofbesparing in zware trucks. PCC gebruikt informatie over het
hoogteprofiel van de toekomstige weg om het bijbehorende ideale snelheidsprofiel te bepalen.
Daarbij worden kleine afwijkingen van de gewenste snelheid van de cruise control toegelaten.
Een wiskundige routine, genaamd Dynamisch Programmeren, is gebruikt om het snelheid-
sprofiel te optimaliseren. Het DP algoritme in dit verslag bleek erg traag te zijn door de
complexiteit van interne definities. Er zijn echter wel simulaties uitgevoerd. Die zijn gedaan
voor een zware DAF truck in verschillende scenario’s. Op deze manier is inzicht verkregen
in hoe en wanneer het voertuig brandstof kan besparen. Op en rondom een korte heuvel is
een gemiddelde besparing van 4.76% gerealiseerd, wat overeenkomt met wat in de literatuur
gevonden is. De brandstofbesparing vloeit voort uit het efficiënter gebruik van de motor en
het vermijden van remacties.

i
Abstract

In vehicle energy management, usually the operating point of the engine is influenced in order
to save fuel. This holds for both hybrid as conventional vehicles. However, it is also possi-
ble to change the power demand at certain points in time. This can be achieved either by
changing vehicle properties (e.g. aerodynamics) or by changing the (desired) vehicle speed.
This report deals with the latter case and gives insight in the potential of Predictive Cruise
Control (PCC) with respect to fuel savings in heavy duty trucks. PCC uses future road
profile information to determine the ideal speed profile, allowing small deviations from the
cruise control set speed.
A mathematical routine called Dynamic Programming is used for the optimization of the
speed profile. The DP algorithm used in this report appeared to be very slow due to com-
plexity of definitions inside it, but simulations have been performed. This is done for a heavy
duty DAF truck in several test cases, giving insight in how and when the fuel savings are
realized. On and around a small hill, an average fuel saving of 4.76% is realized, which cor-
responds to findings from literature. The fuel saving results from more efficient use of the
engine and avoiding braking.

ii
Preface

Preface
This traineeship for DAF Trucks N.V. is part of my Master studies at the mechanical en-
gineering department. Within this department, I have focussed on powertrains in the Auto-
motive Engineering Science (AES) group.
As this traineeship includes very different subjects, like powertrains, drivetrains and opti-
mization methods, it is very appealing to me. Although this assignment covers a relatively
short time, I hope that my work will contribute to the development of more fuel efficient
commercial vehicles.

Acknowledgment
My supervisor Theo Hofman (TU/e) was always enthousiastic about the subject and my
findings. He stimulated me to investigate new things all the time. My coach Michiel Pesgens
(DAF Trucks N.V.) was always very patient and really tried to understand my problems. He
encouraged me to get into details and really understand what was going on. They both have
guided me through this traineeship and their efforts paid off: I have learned a lot during these
months and I am very thankful for that.
I assume that there is no need for explaining that Yvette, my family, friends, colleagues and
all other supporting people are hereby thanked too.

iii
Table of Contents

Samenvatting i

Abstract ii

Preface iii

Table of Contents iv

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2.2 Driveability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.3 Fuel economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.4 Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Assignment 5
2.1 Problem Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Contribution of this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.4 Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.5 Outline of this report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Approach and Modeling 7

3.1 Optimization definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Methods and tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.1 Model approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2.2 Model orientation / causality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Force balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.4 Model structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5 Maximum slope performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6 Sensitivity analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4 Numerical Optimization 14
4.1 Algorithm functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2 Control choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3 DP grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v

4.4 DP function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.5 Simulation setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Results 19
5.1 Test cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 Performances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.1 Computing performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2.2 Fuel savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.3 Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2.4 Fuel saving principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Conclusions and Recommendations 28

6.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

A Powertrain Modeling 31
A.1 Engine model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.1.1 Model 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.1.2 Model 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A.1.3 Model 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.1.4 Model 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.1.5 Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A.2 Transmission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

B Sensitivity Analysis 36
B.1 Vehicle speed sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
B.2 Slope sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
B.3 Mass sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

C Nomenclature 40
Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1 Background

Cruise Control (CC) is a well-known system in the automotive industry these days. It holds
the vehicle speed in order to provide more comfort to the driver. Especially for professional
drivers, who have a high annual mileage, this is a very welcome invention.
However, conventional cruise controls do not take into account road profiles. Therefore, they
are not as fuel efficient on hilly roads. A truck, for example, that drives on a hill, uses a lot
of energy while going up at constant speed. However, when the truck descends shortly later,
a lot of energy is available. If this was taken account for, the truck could have gone up more
slowly and use downhill slope to gain speed again.
These days, with a shortage of fossil fuels ahead (and therefore increasing fuel prices), the
demand for fuel saving technology increases. DAF Trucks N.V. now has (among others) a
special project focussing on energy management of commercial vehicles, in cooperation with
Eindhoven University of Technology. The topic of this traineeship is applicable to both hybrid
and conventional vehicles. The focus in this stage, however, is on conventional vehicles.
For clarity, two conventions have to be made at this point: two different methods to calculate
a reference speed can be found in literature: the first using current vehicle states (Smart
Cruise Control or SCC) and the second using information from the road ahead (Predictive
cruise control or PCC). Figure 1.1 shows the global structure for using SCC and PCC. The
controller block is discussed in section 1.2.4.

1.2 Literature

1.2.1 Methods

Literature shows that some research has already been performed on this subject, mainly
focussing on PCC. Daimler has written a paper on PCC [6], which shows a simple cost
function, but not the method used for optimization. This company also holds a US Patent
[7] and has a truck on the market with PCC: the Freightliner Cascadia, which uses (offline)
maps from Navteq. Hellström’s thesis [3] gives some more insight in methods: there, a model

1
1.2 Literature 2

Plant
Controller
fuel consumption
set speed
CC, PCC throttle, brake
or
SCC actual speed

Figure 1.1: Global structure for CC/SCC/PCC.

predictive control (MPC) scheme is used and the optimization is carried out through dynamic
programming (DP). Furthermore, truck manufacturer Scania seems to have an SCC in its new
R-series: Ecocruise saves up to 5% on complete routes without using preview technology.

1.2.2 Driveability

As has been stated in Walker’s paper [8], three key market drivers can be distinguished: legis-
lation, the customer and the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Legislation prescribes
(among others) emissions and fuel economy. The customer asks for cleaner and more efficient
vehicles, which are easy to use and cheap to maintain. Finally, the OEM tries to meet cus-
tomer desires and legislative requirements, while meeting cost and quality targets.
This implies that new technology does not only have to be safe and efficient, but also has
to take into account the drivers: new features will encounter higher acceptance levels if they
are easy to use, relatively cheap and offer more comfort. The PCC/SCC systems that are
already implemented in trucks meet this desire: from an operating point of view, they do not
differ from a conventional cruise control. The user interfaces are the same and the smart part
of this CC will simply be turned off if there is not enough (preview or vehicle) information
available: the system then acts as a conventional CC. Also, the truck’s velocity should not be
changed significantly: the driver will be tempted to intervene with the throttle if the truck
slows down too much. As shown in Hellström’s controller [2], boundaries can be defined to
prevent the truck from slowing down or speeding up too much.

1.2.3 Fuel economy

The fuel savings using PCC/SCC differ somewhat, since these depend on the application
and on their complexity. As stated before, fuel savings up to 5% seem to be possible with
SCC. Hellström’s papers [2], [3] show savings around 2,5% with simulations on long, real road
profiles. His colleague Fröberg [1], however, states that fuel savings above 10% can be realized
if speed limitations (according to legislation) are taken into account. This number holds for
short road sections (test cases up to 5 kilometers). Latteman [6] shows fuel savings around
1.2 Literature 3

4% for real road simulations. Obviously, a heavier truck saves relatively more fuel, since it
has a higher inertia. These savings might seem low, but since these heavy duty trucks have a
high annual mileage, cost savings can be very high. Unfortunately, no real-life measurements
could be found yet.

1.2.4 Functionality

A conventional cruise control regulates the vehicle speed toward a fixed speed setpoint. The
cruise control’s reference speed could also be prescribed by an additional algorithm. Using
vehicle and/or road information and the set speed (provided by the driver), the optimal
vehicle speed profile is calculated. Scania [5] states that its Ecocruise function (which is not
PCC, but Smart Cruise Control) ”detects” hills and responds correspondingly: the truck goes
up at full engine power and as soon as the slope decreases again (top of the hill), the truck
waits with accelerating, since it can be expected that a down-slope will be ahead and cause
the vehicle to accelerate naturally. Once down the hill, Ecocruise holds the higher velocity
gained downhill for some time, to be ”ready” for a next hill that might be ahead. If the latter
is not encountered, the vehicle will slow down to the set speed again.
A PCC involves some more functions: as it is clearly described by Neiss [7], the GPS system
gives a signal to the PCC. The latter contains a 3D digital road map and can therefore estimate
what hills will be encountered on the road ahead. An optimization algorithm then calculates
the optimal control actions for a limited piece of road ahead. The lookahead distance is called
the prediction horizon. This horizon should be long enough to determine the optimal controls,
but should not be too long. This is because the optimization algorithm requires a high level
of calculation power. The simpler and shorter a calculation can be made, the less computing
power is needed. The PCC then sends out the optimal reference speed to the speed controller
(which is in fact a conventional cruise control). The latter then sends control signals to the
engine and brakes (inducing a certain vehicle speed change). The vehicle speed is fed back
into the controllers to determine a new control action. Figure 1.2 shows the controller block
of Figure 1.1. Controller details will be discussed in Chapter 3.
1.2 Literature 4

Controller

GPS signal (PCC) 3D Digital

Road Map

road profile

set speed
Optimization
Algorithm

reference speed

actual speed + throttle, brake

− Cruise Control

Figure 1.2: PCC functionality overview.

Chapter 2

Assignment

2.1 Problem Definition

In vehicle energy management, usually the operating point of the engine is influenced in
order to save fuel. This holds for both hybrid as conventional vehicles. However, it is also
possible to change the power demand at certain points in time. This can be achieved either by
changing vehicle properties (e.g. aerodynamics) or by changing the (desired) vehicle speed.
A conventional cruise control keeps the vehicle speed constant in situations where there are
no big environmental changes to be expected (so in case of low traffic density and a road with
only small bends).
The goal of this assignment is to investigate what the fuel savings might be when using a
different type of cruise control: predictive cruise control (PCC), which calculates an optimal
speed control action by using preview (looking at the road ahead) signals. The main problem
is defined here as:

Determine the potential of predictive cruise control in heavy duty trucks with respect to fuel
savings.

2.2 Objectives

The main objective of PCC is to realize fuel savings in commercial applications. Next to this,
the system should keep the vehicle within an allowed range of velocities, since the time lost
when driving at lower speeds should be insignificant, as time could represent a certain cost as
well. Also, speeds may not exceed certain limits since high speeds may be dangerous and/or
prohibited.

5
2.3 Contribution of this report 6

2.3 Contribution of this report

This report gives insight in the potential of PCC with respect to fuel savings in heavy duty
trucks. It also provides some tools for further research and expansion of the current technology
in future applications and can be seen as a first step towards fuel saving cruise controls.

2.4 Case

For this assignment, calculations are performed for a long-haulage, heavy-duty truck (in US:
class 8). These trucks have an average annual mileage of 150,000 km and consume in the
order of 30 L/100km on average. The corresponding fuel costs are about 30% of the life cycle
cost of a heavy truck [4]. Because of the latter, they also seem to have a high potential: due
to their weight, heavy trucks can have a large amount of kinetic energy, which can be used
while driving over hills. For simplicity only traffic-free, long and straight roads are assumed,
so external influences are minimized. All calculations are performed for a DAF XF105 truck.
When not mentioned otherwise, it has a total weight of 40 tonnes (40.000 kg). Figure 2.1
shows such a truck.

Figure 2.1: DAF XF105 long-haulage, heavy-duty truck.

2.5 Outline of this report

For the simulations within this traineeship, a model is constructed, which is described in
Chapter 3. Some details of the powertrain and a sensitivity study are described in Appendices
A and B, respectively. In order to develop a predictive cruise control, the method dealing with
the optimization problem is first described in Chapter 4; this is the dynamic programming
method. The results are presented in Chapter 5 and finally, conclusions are drawn in Chapter
6. Here recommendations are also done.
The symbols used in this report are clarified in Appendix C.
Chapter 3

Approach and Modeling

This chapter will go into more detail of the model and design choices will be clarified.

3.1 Optimization definition

The optimization problem can now be formulated. First of all, the objectives are chosen,
based on Lattemann’s [6] paper:

• The vehicle should consume as little fuel as possible on a given road profile.

• The total travel time is fixed to make the system useful for the transport company.

• The velocity should not exceed an upper and not undershoot a lower velocity limit.

These objectives can be implemented as constraints to the problem. These will be described
in the following chapters; for now, only the fuel cost function is taken into account, which is
defined as the consumed fuel volume (Vf ) per traveled distance (sr ):

Vf 1 ṁf
Z
Jf uel = = dt, (3.1)
sr sr ρf

where ρf is the fuel density. In order to determine the fuel flow rate (ṁf ), the road load
has to be known. However, the road load is depending on the vehicle’s speed in history
(which determines the current position and hence, the slope on the route) and its current
speed. Appendix B shows this relation and the fuel consumption sensitivity to some system
variables. Because of this dependency, it is hard to solve this cost function algebraically.
Therefore, a model is derived to perform a numerical optimization procedure. In the next
sections, the method and tools dealing with this problem are described and some model
equations are defined.

7
3.2 Methods and tools 8

3.2 Methods and tools

The simulations in this assignment are performed using MATLAB (which also has the possi-
bility to implement algorithms). For simplicity, no lateral forces (for example, due to steering)
are considered. There, a longitudinal vehicle model is constructed. In literature, it appears
that a relatively simple vehicle model is desired, since that takes little calculation time and
is therefore more suitable [1]. Guzzella [14] describes different ways to build such a model: it
can have different orientations and use different approaches to solve the problem.

3.2.1 Model approach

A vehicle model, like the one in this report, can use different approaches. Guzzella [14]
distinguishes three types:
The average operating point approach is used for a first preliminary estimation of
the fuel consumption. It uses a representative average operating point to calculate the fuel
consumption.
The quasistatic approach uses engine maps to calculate the fuel consumption. This is
more accurate.
The dynamic approach is even better: it uses mathematical descriptions of the powertrain
system and is therefore able to find a very good approximation of the real fuel consumption.
Because of its complexity however, it makes the model slow. The calculation time can be
reduced by neglecting relatively fast effects (like exhaust gas recirculation effects) that have
an insignificant contribution to the fuel consumption.
In this report, a relatively simple dynamic approach is used: the main behavior of the system
is described by mathematical equations.

3.2.2 Model orientation / causality

A forward facing model starts in this case at the driver: the truck responds to his control
actions and undergoes some external influences, resulting in a vehicle speed. A model like
that follows the natural path of occurrences.
A backward facing model uses road information to calculate the power demand from the
engine. This is a fast and easy way, but it is not able to handle feedback control problems,
like the cruise control in this assignment.
In this report, a backward facing model is used to get a quick understanding of the fuel saving
potential of PCC.

3.3 Force balance

The model uses a force balance, as shown in Figure 3.1. It is based on Newton’s second law:
the vehicle’s mass times its acceleration (m · a) is equal to the sum of all longitudinal forces
3.4 Model structure 9

acting on the vehicle.

ΣF = −Fext − Fbrk + Feng = m · a, (3.2)
which are external and engine force.
Fext = Fdf + Fsl (3.3)
Drag and friction force:
Fdf = m · gCr cos(α) + 0.5ρair Cw Av 2 (3.4)
The gravitational force due to the slope is calculated using the road profile angle α:
Fsl = m · g sin α (3.5)

F eng

+ F brk
t
F ex

sr yr

α
xr

Figure 3.1: Force balance when driving on a slope.

The road angle α can be calculated from the road profile; Figure 3.1 shows the definitions of
xr , yr , sr and α.
dsr
= v, (3.6)
dt

yr
 
α = arcsin , (3.7)
sr

3.4 Model structure

The road height h and vehicle speed v are known, since they are prescribed in a backward
facing model. Therefore, the drive force demanded from the transmission is equal to the sum
of the other forces acting on the vehicle.

Fdr = m · a + Fsl + Fdf . (3.8)

3.5 Maximum slope performance 10

The wheel torque and speed can then be determined:

Tw = Fdr Rw , (3.9)

v
ωw = . (3.10)
Rw

Now, the engine torque and speed can be calculated directly using the transmission and
differential efficiency, which is assumed to be constant. This efficiency describes the whole
drive, including the differential.
Tw
Te = , (3.11)
rg rf ηtrm

ωe = ωt rg rf . (3.12)

Finally, the engine’s fuel consumption can be determined using a Willans approximation [15].
This means that the fuel consumption (ṁf ) at each engine speed is approximated as a linear
function of the engine torque. This method is further explained in Appendix A.

ωe V d
ṁf = (pme + pml ), (3.13)
4πLHV ηi

This result can be used to calculate the total amount of fuel used:

ṁf
Z
Vf = dt. (3.14)
ρf

3.5 Maximum slope performance

In order to determine what test cases are realistic, the maximum possible slope first is deter-
mined. For simplicity, it is assumed that the truck only uses 12th (highest) gear and taking
into account the maximum torque, this yields a maximum slope for each speed. Figure 3.2
shows this dependency for different masses. The effect of the maximum torque line can clearly
be distinguished. It appears that for the case in this report (40 tonnes), the maximum slope
is about 1.85 % at 80 km/h and 1.93 % at 72 km/h. These numbers seem very small, but the
highest gear is mainly for cruising at flat roads. It corresponds with Fröberg’s [1] findings,
who also uses a fixed gear ratio (no shifting).
3.6 Sensitivity analysis 11

4.5

4
m = 20 tonnes
3.5
m = 30 tonnes
3 m = 40 tonnes
slope [%]

2.5

1.5

0.5
40 50 60 70 80 90 100
velocity [km/h

Figure 3.2: Maximum slope for different masses in 12th gear.

3.6 Sensitivity analysis

In order to gain some understanding of the system, a sensitivity analysis of the fuel consump-
tion is performed. First, equations 3.8 to 3.9 are substituted in the equation for the engine
torque (3.11):

Tw Fdr Rw
Te = =
rg rf ηtrm rg rf ηtrm
(m·g sin(α)+m·gCr cos(α)+0.5ρair Cw Av2 )Rw
= rg rf ηtrm . (3.15)

As can be seen from this relation, (3.13) and (3.1), it is hard to solve this algebraically. Be-
cause of the Willans definition, the vehicle speed is present in all equations and an optimal
speed profile cannot easily be derived, as the relations are non-linear. Therefore, an algorithm
is needed to determine the optimal speed profile. This is discussed in the next section.

From the equations above, it becomes clear that the vehicle speed, road angle and vehicle
mass are important variables. These can vary over time or when the operating conditions
change. In the figures below, only one of these three variables is varied. The others are
assumed to be constant and equal their ”baseline” values: v = 80 [km/h], α = 0 [rad] and
m = 40 [tonnes]. Also, a fixed gear is assumed: 12th gear (highest). The equations for these
results are evaluated in Appendix B.
3.6 Sensitivity analysis 12

fuel flow rate [g/s] 5

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
velocity [km/h]

Figure 3.3: Vehicle speed sensitivity of fuel consumption.

14

12

10
fuel flow rate [g/s]

0
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
slope [%]

Figure 3.4: Slope sensitivity of fuel consumption.

It appears that the vehicle speed has a third order influence on the fuel consumption, whereas
the road angle and vehicle mass have a (nearly) linear influence.
3.6 Sensitivity analysis 13

5.5
fuel flow rate [g/s]

4.5

3.5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mass [tonnes]

Figure 3.5: Mass sensitivity of fuel consumption.

Chapter 4

Numerical Optimization

This chapter describes the algorithm functionality, what control method is chosen and how
it is applied to the problem in this report.

4.1 Algorithm functionality

As described in the previous chapter, both SCC and PCC algorithms have the same function:
minimize the fuel cost function (3.1). This does not mean that fuel consumption at any in-
stant is minimized; fuel consumption might even increase at some parts of the route, as long
as the fuel consumption for the whole trip is minimal. Since cruise control is used most of
the time during long distance driving at constant speed (for instance at a speed of 80 km/h),
a fixed gear ratio is assumed. It is assumed that all hills can be traveled using only 12th
(highest) gear. The torque needed from the engine can be influenced by changing the desired
vehicle speed.

The algorithm should determine what reference speed profile leads to the lowest overall fuel
consumption while still driving a reasonable average speed. As mentioned before, the travel
time can be seen as a cost, too: if the average speed is low, the vehicle will be less profitable for
the transport company. In the backward facing model, this output is handled as a prescribed
speed profile. In a forward facing model, it would be offered as a reference speed to the cruise
controller. The inputs for the algorithm are the set speed (driver input), vehicle speed and
vehicle acceleration (time derivative of speed). These signals are present in the truck, so no
extra sensors have to be implemented. In the case of a PCC, also a GPS signal is used as input.

4.2 Control choice

The equation in section 3.1 can be seen as a cost function. The method which minimizes this
function is called optimal control. For the problem in this report, three optimal control types
can be used: heuristic control, MPC and DP.

14
4.3 DP grid 15

Heuristic control is based on simple rules: the logic is prescribed by the programmer and
a quick estimation of a solution is possible. However, it might be challenging to set up these
rules.
MPC, which stands for Model Predictive Control is a different type of optimal control. The
controller uses real-time data and internal models to determine which control action has to
be applied. It handles dynamics in the system well, but performance largely depends on the
quality of the internal models.
DP, or Dynamic Programming, also depends on its models, but really determines the optimal
solution. No other controller type performs better, but DP is not the fastest: the number
of calculations grows exponentially with the size of the problem. Bellman [11] calls this the
curse of dimensionality.
The algorithm calculates a cost-to-go matrix for every step: this matrix contains information
of the cost to go from that system state to any other possible state. If the cost to go from
one state to another is seen as having a length, the optimal solution then is the shortest path
from the initial state to the final state. This is called a shortest path problem.

It appears that there’s a tradeoff between calculation time and quality of the solution. This
work investigates the potential of PCC and therefore, the quality of the solution is of greater
importance than the needed calculation time. The solution will be determined offline and is
not to be implemented in a truck directly. This makes DP the best control method for this
problem: it indicates the maximum achievable fuel savings. The result can later on be used
as a benchmark for suboptimal controllers.

4.3 DP grid

Berstekas [12] gives many examples on how to use DP in practice, but Sundström [10] provides
two very complete examples: not only equations are given, but also the complete DP algorithm
is described in a MATLAB environment. Therefore, these examples are used as a basis for
this report.
For the DP algorithm, several definitions have to be made concerning the grid and the con-
straints. One input and two states are defined here. A backwards facing model is used and
the input is the vehicle speed. The cost function is defined as (3.1). The two states are the
traveled distance and the previous velocity. This choice is explained in the next section. The
DP grid structure is displayed in Table 4.1.
Given the constraints, the possible inputs (velocities) can be interpreted as a search space,
which is displayed in Figure 4.1. The green field contains inputs, whereas the gray areas
indicate the infeasible points due to constraints on initial and final values.
At every time step, the cost to go from one state to any other possible state is determined.
Therefore, the number of operations is of order

O(N ) = N n2 (4.1)
4.3 DP grid 16

Table 4.1: Grid structure for DP algorithm.

Input: velocity
Nu{1} number of grid points in input grid
Un{1}.hi upper bound velocity
Un{1}.lo lower bound velocity

Problem
Ts time step
N number of time steps in problem

State 1: traveled distance

Nx{1} number of grid points in state grid
Xn{1}.hi upper bound traveled distance
Xn{1}.lo lower bound traveled distance
X0{1} initial traveled distance
XN{1}.hi upper bound final traveled distance
XN{1}.lo lower bound final traveled distance

State 2: previous velocity

Nx{2} number of grid points in state grid
Xn{2}.hi upper bound velocity
Xn{2}.lo lower bound velocity
X0{2} initial velocity
XN{2}.hi upper bound penultimate velocity
XN{2}.lo lower bound penultimate velocity

v.hi

v.N
velocity

v.lo

Time step

Figure 4.1: Search space for average velocity.

Hereby, N is the problem length and n is equal to the number of possible states.
4.4 DP function 17

4.4 DP function

In order to satisfy the constraints, the average velocity has te be calculated within the op-
timization. Therefore, the traveled distance is chosen as state: together with the problem
length (in seconds), this determines the average velocity (according to the midpoint method).
Also, the acceleration of the vehicle has to be determined for every step. Therefore, a second
state is introduced, being the previous velocity. Together with the input (”new” velocity),
the mean velocity, traveled distance and acceleration can be calculated:

vold + v
v= (4.2)
2

∆x = v · ∆t (4.3)

2(∆x − vold · ∆t)

a= (4.4)
(∆t)2

The DP function describing the system returns new state variables and cost-to-go. The states
and input are loaded at the start of this function. Also, the road profile is loaded. The current
position is calculated as the product of the average velocity and the time traveled. Then, the
road height is determined by interpolation in the loaded table.
DP assumes that during one time step, the states are constant. Since the time step ∆t is 1
second, the calculations in the DP function are simple: the traveled distance in one step ∆x
is equal to the speed value and the consumed fuel is equal to the fuel flow rate value.
The DP function returns the new states, a cost-to-go matrix and a matrix I containing
infeasible points. Solutions which not yield an allowed final state are automatically seen as
infeasible. However, constraints can result in more infeasible points, which are stored in this
matrix I. In this problem, I contains points where the maximum engine torque is exceeded.
Figure 4.2 shows the structure of the cost matrix. The layers (gray) each represent the results
for one time step: it contains the cost for every state and input. The marked positions (red)
represent how some values are eliminated from the solution: these are the infeasible points.

4.5 Simulation setup

The DP algorithm described above can now be used in a simulation environment. First, a
test case is defined, prescribing vehicle data, road profile and allowed velocities. The main
file then exchanges information with the reference scenario: a vehicle driving at constant
speed over the same road (using cruise control). The main file also prepares the DP problem
grid and some settings. The DP routine and the reference both return fuel consumption and
vehicle states. The main file outputs this and the calculated fuel savings. The workflow for
this setup is displayed in Figure 4.3.
4.5 Simulation setup 18

state 1 to Nx
mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf

input 1 to Nu
mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf
mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf
mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf
Time
mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf mf

State

Input

Figure 4.2: Cost matrix.

DP

- average velocity
- velocity band - optimized fuel consumption
- total mass - vehicle states
- gear
- road
- -DP
DPgrid
settings

savings and vehicle states

test case main
- average velocity
- velocity band
- total mass - average velocity
- gear - total mass - reference fuel consumption
- road - gear - vehicle states
- road

reference

Figure 4.3: Workflow for simulation setup.

Chapter 5

Results

5.1 Test cases

In order to find how a fuel saving speed profile would look like, several test cases have been
set up. Simulations are done for hills, valleys and simple steps up and down. Also, several
different setups are investigated: average velocity, speed difference (between average and
min/max value), gear and mass. The test cases are described in Table 5.1 and the results are
discussed later on in this chapter.
In simulations, the road angle is prescribed and used to determine the road load. The road
height is determined by integration of the road angle over distance. For all cases (either up
or down), a slope of 0.018 radians is used. This equals a slope of 1.8%. As mentioned in
Section 3.5, the maximum slope for a fully loaded truck in 12th gear is 1.85%. A slope of 1%
appeared to yield no significant savings, so a steeper profile has been chosen. A drawback is
then that the downhill section is too steep for engine braking only: the truck will have to use
a retarder and/or the normal brakes.

5.2 Performances

After simulation of all test cases, several results are interesting. This section discusses the
computing performance, fuel savings and the trends that can be found in the speed profiles.

5.2.1 Computing performance

A well-known problem using DP algorithms is the explosion of the problem size when a
detailed simulation is desired. A dual core processor (two times 2.50 GHz) in combination
with 4 GB memory appeared to be insufficient to solve this problem. Some research learned
that a 64-bit system is able to process larger amounts of data. A server was used for the
simulations in this assignment. The specifications are displayed in Table 5.2. With a step
size of 0.5[s] and a speed discretization of 0.125[m], a problem took about 75 minutes to be
solved. An explanation for this large computing time lies in the fact that the DP algorithm

19
5.2 Performances 20

Table 5.1: Definition of the test cases.

case v[km/h] dv[km/h] gear mass [ton] profile

1 80 5 12 40 hill
2 80 2.5 12 40 hill
3 85 5 12 40 hill
4 75 5 12 40 hill
5 80 5 12 25 hill
6 80 5 12 15 hill
7 80 5 11 40 hill
8 80 5 10 40 hill

9 80 5 12 40 valley
10 80 2.5 12 40 valley
11 85 5 12 40 valley
12 75 5 12 40 valley
13 80 5 12 30 valley
14 80 5 12 20 valley
15 80 5 11 40 valley
16 80 5 10 40 valley

17 80 5 12 40 two hills
18 80 5 12 40 two valleys

19 80 5 12 40 step up
20 80 5 12 40 step down

investigates every step defined in the distance grid at every time instant. It does not take
into account that only a few steps near the current step will yield a valid solution.

Table 5.2: Server specifications.

number of CPU’s 4
CPU speed 2660 MHz
total memory 32959644 KB
swap total 14635172 KB
operating system Linux 2.6
MATLAB version R2009b (64-bit)
5.2 Performances 21

5.2.2 Fuel savings

After simulation of all test cases, an overview of the fuel savings can be made. Figure 5.1
shows the result. Several things can be noticed here. First of all, the high peak at case 20
(single step down). In combination with the fact that case 19 (single step up) appears to save
nothing at all, one can draw the conclusion that fuel saving is realized at downhill parts. The
savings profile of case 1-8 looks the same as the one of case 9-16. The latter covers the same
cases, but on the valley profile. Cases 6 and 14 save nothing at all: these represent empty
trucks. Apparently, the truck has to be heavy in order to save fuel. If one does not take into
account the single step cases (19, 20), an average fuel saving of 4.76% is realized for these
short test cases.

18

16

14

12

10
fuel savings [%]

−2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
case number [−]

Figure 5.1: Fuel savings per case.

5.2.3 Trends

By studying the results of the simulations, one can find several trends in the speed profiles.
Figure 5.2 shows the results for different speeds on a hill. The profile looks the same: deceler-
ation uphill and acceleration downhill. The speed is raised before the hill in order to be able
to decelerate all the way up. Velocity increases again at the downhill section, making sure
the average velocity is met. The difference in road height can be explained by investigating
the definition: the traveled distance is used to look up the road angle by interpolating in a
prescribed vector. This experienced road angle is then used to determine the road height,
causing a small deviation in some cases.
For different masses, a similar trend can be found: deceleration uphill and acceleration down-
hill, as can be seen in Figure 5.3. Because of the lower inertia, a lighter vehicle accelerates
faster and can reach a higher velocity before the hill. Therefore, the amplitude of this profile
5.2 Performances 22

90
80 km/h
85 km/h
85 75 km/h

velocity [km/h
80

75

70
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

1.5
height [m]

0.5

−0.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
distance [m]

Figure 5.2: Results for different speeds on a hill.

is somewhat larger. The same holds for different gears (Figure 5.4): lower gears enable faster
acceleration and therefore a larger amplitude.

86
40 tons
84 25 tons
15 tons
velocity [km/h

82

80

78

76
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

1.5
height [m]

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
distance [m]

Figure 5.3: Results for different masses on a hill.

5.2 Performances 23

84
gear 12
83 gear 11
82 gear 10
velocity [km/h

81

80

79

78

77
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

1.5
height [m]

0.5

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
distance [m]

Figure 5.4: Results for different gears on a hill.

5.2 Performances 24

Simulations of the valley profile show the same trends again: acceleration downhill, decelera-
tion uphill and larger amplitudes for lighter vehicles. Figure 5.5 shows the results for different
speeds and Figure 5.6 for different masses. Something remarkable occurs for the 20 tons case:
the profile is totally different. This is due to problems in the optimization. For empty trucks,
the fuel saving is approximately zero and apparently several solutions are available for zero
savings.

90
80 km/h
85 km/h
85 75 km/h
velocity [km/h

80

75

70
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

0.5

0
height [m]

−0.5

−1

−1.5

−2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
distance [m]

Figure 5.5: Results for different speeds in a valley.

83
40 tons
82 30 tons
20 tons
81
velocity [km/h

80

79

78

77
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

−0.5
height [m]

−1

−1.5

−2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
distance [m]

Figure 5.6: Results for different masses in a valley.

5.2 Performances 25

Figure 5.7, finally, shows the results for different gears. The same trends can be found once
more: acceleration downhill, deceleration uphill and larger amplitudes for lower gears.

83
gear 12
82 gear 11
gear 10
81
velocity [km/h

80

79

78

77
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

−0.5
height [m]

−1

−1.5

−2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
distance [m]

Figure 5.7: Results for different gears in a valley.

5.2.4 Fuel saving principle

In order to explain the fuel saving principle, case 1 is taken as an example. Other cases show
similar results. Figure 5.8 shows detailed results of this case. It is clear that the engine torque
is very low for the deceleration phase. The fuel saving principle is already indicated in Section
5.2.2, as it appeared that mainly heavy loaded trucks on downhill sections are able to save
fuel. Figure 5.9 shows the engine map for case 1, in which it becomes clear that for constant
speed, the desired torque is lower than what is possible by engine braking. Therefore, the
service brakes have to be activated. This type of energy conversion is not encountered by
using the PCC algorithm in this report.
In order to determine whether this is the fuel saving principle, the energy flows are depicted
in Figures 5.10 and 5.11. Here, it becomes clear that using PCC no energy is lost by braking.
Moreover, the engine appears to operate more efficiently, as less engine losses occur using
predictive cruise control. PCC thus aims at more efficient engine use and braking prevention
by changing the speed profile: a low speed at the start of a downhill section, combined with
a higher allowed speed, result in a profile without use of brakes.
5.2 Performances 26

case 1
90

v [km/h]
80

70
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

2
h [m]

−2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

2000
Te [Nm]]

1000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
distance [m]
15

10
mf [g]

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
distance [m]

Figure 5.8: Detailed results for case 1.

5
x 10
3 14

2.5
12

10
engine power [Nm*rad/s]

fuel lines [g/s]

1.5
constant speed
optimized speed
1 8

0.5
6

4
−0.5

−1
110 115 120 125
engine speed [rad/s]

Figure 5.9: Operating points in the engine map.

5.2 Performances 27

Rolling resistance
0.96 [MJ]
Air drag
0.08 [MJ]
Braking

1.12 [MJ]
Fuel
5.62 [MJ]
Engine losses
3.46 [MJ]

Figure 5.10: Energy flows for the reference.

Rolling resistance
0.96 [MJ]
Air drag

1.12 [MJ]

Fuel
5.34 [MJ]
Engine losses
3.26 [MJ]

Figure 5.11: Energy flows for PCC.

Chapter 6

Conclusions and Recommendations

6.1 Conclusions

The goal of this assignment was to investigate the potential of a new way to save fuel: pre-
dictive cruise control, which allows small deviations from the set speed. A DP algorithm,
developed by Sundström and Guzzella [10], was used to determine the optimized speed pro-
file en the corresponding fuel savings. Simulations show that the fuel saving is realized by
more efficient use of the engine and minimization of brake use.
It appears that fuel saving is therefore achieved by going downhill at optimized speeds. De-
celerating or selecting a low speed is preferred for uphill road sections, whereas acceleration
is preferred for downhill sections. The average fuel savings for different scenario’s in this
assignment 4.76%, which corresponds with the findings in literature.
Because of the complexity of the DP algorithm, many assumptions had to be done, but if
future work manages to simplify the algorithm, many alternatives are possible. One could
think of gear shifting and larger road profiles.

6.2 Recommendations

The first and most important recommendation is to simplify the provided DP algorithm. If
there is a way to stop the algorithm from calculating every single possible step, the needed
memory and processor load improvements are immense. This could also involve writing a new
algorithm, being either DP or something similar. Calculation times with the current files are
too long to deal with properly. Selecting or writing a new algorithm should take into account
real-time performance: it is preferable to calculate the optimum online (in-vehicle).
Furthermore, one should investigate how the signals can be provided to the algorithm. The
vehicle data and the road profile data should be available and accessible. Also, one should
consider implementing more vehicle sensors or state estimators: it seems to be beneficial to
know the total vehicle weight, as this has consequences for the ideal speed profile.

28
Bibliography

[1] A. Fröberg, E. Hellström, L. Nielsen: Explicit Fuel Optimal Speed Profiles for Heavy Trucks on a
Set of Topographic Road Profiles, 2006 SAE World Congress - Detroit, Michigan - SAE Technical
Paper 2006-01-1071.

[2] E. Hellström, A. Fröberg, L. Nielsen: A Real-Time Fuel-Optimal Cruise Controller for Heavy
Trucks Using Road Topography Information, 2006 SAE World Congress - Detroit, Michigan -
SAE Technical Paper 2006-01-0008.

[3] E. Hellström, Master’s Thesis: Explicit Use of Road Topography for Model Predictive Cruise
Control in Heavy Trucks, Linköpings Universitet - Reg. nr. LiTH-ISY-EX–05/3660–SE.

[4] E. Hellström, M. Ivarsson, J. Slund, L. Nielsen: Look-ahead Control For Heavy Trucks to Minimize
Trip Time and Fuel Consumption, Control Engineering Practice, Volume 17, Issue 2, February
2009 - pages 245-254

[5] Scania press release on Ecocruise: http://www.scanianewsroom.com/2009/02/23/master-of-the-

hills, February 2009.

[6] F. Lattemann, K. Neiss, S. Terwen, T. Connolly: The Predictive Cruise Control - A System to
Reduce Fuel Consumption of Heavy Duty Trucks, Commercial Vehicle Engineering Congress and
Exhibition - Rosemount, Illinois USA - SAE Technical Paper 2004-01-2616.

[7] Neiss et al.: Predictive Speed Control for a Motor Vehicle, United States Patent, no.:
US 6,990,401 B2.

[8] R. Walker Sentience - Using Electronic Horizon Data to Improve Hybrid Vehicle Fuel Economy,
Transport Research Laboratory, 2008 - ISBN: 978-0-86341-920-1 (via IEEE).

[9] M. Barth, G. Scora, T. Younglove: Intelligent Off-Board Management of Vehicle operating Pa-
rameters, University of California, 2003 - IEEE: 0-7803-8125-4/03.

[10] O. Sundström, L. Guzzella: A Generic Dynamic Programming Matlab Function, 18th IEEE
International Conference on Control Applications - Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2009 - ISBN: 978-
1-4244-4602-5/09 (via IEEE).

[11] R. Bellman: Dynamic Programming, Dover Publications, 2003 - ISBN: 0-486-42809-5.

[12] D. Berstekas: Dynamic Programming and Optimal Control, vol. 1, Athena Scientific, 1995 - ISBN:
1-886529-12-4.

[13] R. Giannelli, E. Nam, K. Helmer, T. Younglove, G. Scora, M. Barth: Heavy-Duty Diesel Vehicle
Fuel Consumption Modeling Based on Road Load and Power Train Parameters, SAE International
2005 - Paper Offer #: 05CV-3.

29
BIBLIOGRAPHY 30

[14] L. Guzzella, A. Sciaretta: Vehicle Propulsion Systems: Introduction to Modeling and Optimiza-
tion, Springer 2005 - ISBN: 3-540-25195-2.

[15] L. Guzzella, C. Onder: Introduction to Modeling and Control of Internal Combustion Engine
Systems, Springer 2004 - ISBN: 3-540-22274-3.
Appendix A

Powertrain Modeling

A.1 Engine model

A Willans curve methodology is used to model the engine’s friction and efficiency parameters.
The engine specifications and some measurement data for the MX340 engine are provided by
DAF. Below, four different approximations are described, each having a different number
of parameters. These parameters are optimized with the fminsearch routine in MATLAB,
minimizing the squared difference between the model and the measurements. This way,
opposing errors cannot compensate each other and big deviations are punished harder than
small deviations.
Because of the confidential nature of parameter values, these are left out. However, the mean
squared error and graphic results are given.

A.1.1 Model 1

Equation 3.13 follows the model of Guzzella [15], but uses a slightly different notation. A
rather complex model with many parameters is provided, but first, a simple model is tested:
only the two main parameters (ηi and pml ) are optimized:

ωe V d
ṁf = (pme + pml ). (A.1)
4πLHV ηi

A.1.2 Model 2

Model 2 follows the paper of Giannelli [13]. The fuel consumption is described as a function
of friction (depending on engine speed) and engine efficiency (constant). The main difference
is that this approach has a higher order dependence on the engine speed. Note that this is
not in S.I. units: Giannelli uses [L], [kPa], [kJ/kg] and [kW]. The three parameters are the

31
A.1 Engine model 32

indicated engine efficiency and two friction parameters: (ηi , k0 and k1 )

1 kne Vd,t 4000πne Te

 
ṁf = + [kg/s], (A.2)
1000 Nr LHV Nr LHV ηi

with the friction parameters:

k = k0 + k1 ne . (A.3)

A.1.3 Model 3

Model 3 is basically the same as model 2, but uses a more extensive definition of the friction.
Here, also a dependency on the mean piston speed is included, which makes the model use
four parameters: k2 is added.

2
k = k0 + k1 ne + k2 U p . (A.4)

A.1.4 Model 4

Model 4 is an extension of model 1 and uses five parameters, describing the indicated engine
efficiency, some friction coefficients and a gas exchange component. Note that the parameter
numbers do not match Guzzella’s definition, as some of them can be combined: ηi , k1 , k2 , k3
and pmlg .

ωe V d
ṁf = (pme + pml ) [kg/s], (A.5)
4πLHV ηi

with

pml = pmlf + pmlg (A.6)

r
k3
= k1 + k2 s2 ωe2 Πe,max + pmlg .
B

A.1.5 Comparison

The models are compared using the mean value of the squared error, which is given below.
Figure A.1 shows the error distribution. Note that this is not the squared error, since that
would not show whether the model more often results in a higher or lower fuel consumption.
It appears that model 4 matches the measurements best, although it has the tendency to
result in a slightly smaller fuel consumption.
Figure A.2 shows this in a different way; the power input and power output from the engine
are displayed here, also clearly showing that model 4 matches the measurements best.
A.1 Engine model 33

Table A.1: Engine model performance.

Model Mean squared error

Model 1 0.1498
Model 2 0.1455
Model 3 0.1340
Model 4 0.0436

Model 1 Model 2

60 60
Frequency

Frequency

40 40

20 20

0 0
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
error error
Model 3 Model 4

60 60
Frequency

Frequency

40 40

20 20

0 0
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
error error

Figure A.1: Error distribution for all models.

A.1 Engine model 34

Model 1 Model 2
900 900

800 800

700 700

600 600
Fuel Power [kW]

500 Fuel Power [kW] 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
−100 −50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Engine Power [kW] Engine Power [kW]

Model 3 Model 4
900 900

800 800

700 700

600 600
Fuel Power [kW]

Fuel Power [kW]

500 500

400 400

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
−100 −50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 −100 −50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Engine Power [kW] Engine Power [kW]

Figure A.2: Willans lines for all models.

A.2 Transmission 35

A.2 Transmission
12 AS 2540 TD ZF-AS Tronic (Truck)
The DAF XF that is used as an example in this report uses a 12-speed automatic ZF AS-Tronic
transmission. This transmission is from the company ZF, type 12 AS 2540 TD (depicted in
Automatic
Figure transmission
A.3). The final drivesystem
ratio forfor heavy
this trucktrucks
is 2.69 and a constant transmission efficiency
of 95% is assumed (including differential).

Figure
12 AS 2540 TD - Basic A.3: ZF AS-Tronic automatic
transmission transmission (AMT).
12 AS 2541 TD - Transmission with Intarder
12 AS 2545 TD - Transmission with clutch-dependen t PTO

Table A.2: Gear ratio’s for the ZF 12 AS 2540 TD.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 R1 R2
15.86 12.29
Transmission type 9.57 7.41 5.89 4.57 3.47 2.69 2.10 1.62
12 AS 25401.29
TD 1.00 14.68 11.38
Input torque max. 2500 Nm

Weight * without auxiliaries ≈ 256 kg

Oil capacity for initial filling ≈ 13 dm 3

Oil grade as specified in ZF List of Lubricants TE-ML 02

Clutch bell housing SAE 1 integrated

Additional weight for ZF-Intarder ≈ 70 kg

Additional oil quantity for ZF-Intarder ≈ 10 dm 3

*without oil fill, clutch and clutch release compon ents

Standard ratios in gear

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 R1 R2
15.86 12.29 9.57 7.41 5.89 4.57 3.47 2.69 2.10 1.62 1.29 1.00 14.68 11.38

see also Data Sheet for Intarder: IT_AS_Tronic_Truc k_EN

2008-09

ZF Friedrichshafen AG • Lkw-Antriebstechnik • 88038 Friedrichshafen/Germany

EN

Subject to technical change without notice. Tel. +49 7541 77- 0 • Fax +49 7541 77- 908000 • www.zf.com/truck-transmission
Appendix B

Sensitivity Analysis

In order to determine the effect of vehicle speed, road slope and vehicle mass, calculations on
the fuel consumption are performed here.
First, the governing equations are given. In order to determine the fuel consumption, also the
engine speed is needed, but that is directly dependent on the vehicle speed ( ωe = vrg rf /Rw
). A fixed gear is assumed: 12th gear (highest) and the three variables are seen as inputs here
and have standard values v = 80[km/h], α = 0[rad] and m = 40[tonnes].

Equation 3.13 is repeated here:

ωe V d
ṁf = (pme + pml )
4πLHV ηi
 
= 4πLHV
ωe Vd
ηi
4πTe
Vd + p ml (B.1)

Equations 3.8 to 3.9 are substituted in the equation for the engine torque (3.11):

Tdr Fdr Rw
Te = =
rg rf ηtrm rg rf ηtrm
(mg sin(α)+mgCr cos(α)+0.5ρair Cw Av2 )Rw
= rg rf ηtrm (B.2)

36
B.1 Vehicle speed sensitivity 37

B.1 Vehicle speed sensitivity

The velocity dependence is determined (standard slope and weight). It appears that the
dependency is of third order. Figure B.1 shows the result.

mgCr + 0.5ρair Cw Av 2 Rw


Te (v) = (B.3)
rg rf ηtrm

After combining this with B.1, this yields

!
vrg rf Vd 4πRw mgCr + 0.5ρair Cw Av 2


ṁf (v) = + pml
4πRw LHV ηi Vd rg rf ηtrm

= V1 v + V2 v 3 (B.4)

with constants

1 mgCr Vd rg rf pml
 
V1 = +
ηi LHV ηtrm 4πRw
0.5ρair Cw A
V2 =
ηi ηtrm LHV

6
fuel flow rate [g/s]

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
velocity [km/h]

Figure B.1: Vehicle speed sensitivity of fuel consumption.

B.2 Slope sensitivity 38

B.2 Slope sensitivity

The slope dependence is determined (standard velocity and weight). It appears that the fuel
consumption depends on the sine and cosine of the road angle. However, since the angles are
small, the dependency seems linear, as can be seen in Figure B.2. Substitution of B.2 in B.1:

!
vrg rf Vd 4πRw mg sin(α) + mgCr cos(α) + 0.5ρair Cw Av 2


ṁf (α) = + pml
4πRw LHV ηi Vd rg rf ηtrm

= A1 + A2 cos(α) + A3 sin(α) (B.5)

with constants

v 0.5ρair Cw Av 2 rg rf Vd pml
 
A1 = +
LHV ηi ηtrm 4πRw
vmgCr
A2 =
LHV ηi ηt rm
vmg
A3 =
LHV ηi ηt rm
(B.6)

14

12

10
fuel flow rate [g/s]

0
−2 −1.5 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
slope [%]

Figure B.2: Slope sensitivity of fuel consumption.

B.3 Mass sensitivity 39

B.3 Mass sensitivity

The weight dependence is determined (standard velocity and slope). It appears that the
dependency is of first order. Figure B.3 shows the result.
!
vrg rf Vd 4πRw mg sin(α) + mgCr cos(α) + 0.5ρair Cw Av 2


ṁf (α) = + pml
4πRw LHV ηi Vd rg rf ηtrm

= M1 + M 2 m (B.7)

with constants

v 0.5ρair Cw Av 2 rg rf Vd pml
 
M1 = +
LHV ηi ηtrm 4πRw
vgCr
M2 =
LHV ηi ηtrm
(B.8)

5.5
fuel flow rate [g/s]

4.5

3.5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
mass [tonnes]

Figure B.3: Mass sensitivity of fuel consumption.

Appendix C

Nomenclature

Symbol Unit Description

A [m2 ] Vehicle frontal area

a [m/s2 ] Vehicle acceleration
Cr [−] Rolling resistance coefficient
Cw [1/m2 ] Air drag resistance coefficient
Fbrk [N ] Brake force
Fdf [N ] Drag and friction force
Fdr [N ] Drive force
Feng [N ] Engine force
Fext [N ] External forces
Fsl [N ] Force due to slope
g [m/s2 ] Gravitational acceleration
h [m] Road height
Jf uel [L/100km] Cost function for fuel consumption
k [−] Willans line parameter
LHV [J/kg] Fuel lower heating value
m [kg] Total vehicle weight
ṁf [kg/s] Fuel flow rate
ne [1/s] Engine speed in rotations per second
Nr [−] Number of revolutions per cycle
pme [P a] Mean effective pressure
pml [P a] Mean pressure loss
Rw [m] Driven wheel radius
rf [−] Final drive ratio
rg [−] Gear ratio
sr [m] Traveled distance
Te [N m] Engine torque
Tt [N m] Transmission torque
Up [m/s] Mean piston speed
v [m/s] Vehicle speed

40
 41

Symbol Unit Description

Vd [m3 ] Displacement volume

Vf [L] Volume of used fuel
yr [m] vertical road length

α [rad] Road profile angle

ηi [−] Indicated engine efficiency
ηtrm [−] Overall transmission efficiency
ρair [kg/m3 ] Air density
ρf [kg/m3 ] Fuel density
ΣF [N ] Sum of all longitudinal forces acting on the vehicle
ωe [rad/s] Engine speed
ωt [rad/s] Transmission speed