Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Phev Control Strategy: Project ID # VSSP - 18 - Rousseau
Phev Control Strategy: Project ID # VSSP - 18 - Rousseau
Control Strategy
Project ID # vssp_18_rousseau
This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
Project Overview
Timeline Barriers
Start – September 2008 Develop optimum control strategies
End – September 2009 to maximize fuel displacement
50% Complete Take into account real world driving
Budget Partners
DOE U.S EPA
FY08 $ 400k
FY09 $ 200k
2
Main Objectives
3
Milestones
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Develop Controls
Tune Parameters
Run Simulations on Real
World Drive Cycles (RWDC)
Select “Best Control”
per vehicle
Analyze Impact on
Components Operation
Write report
Current Status
4
Approach – Vehicle Definition
Vehicle Assumptions
Battery Power
Engine Power
Battery Energy
No
Convergence
Thermostat
12kWh Load Following Engine Power
Series
Thermostat
16kWh Load Following Engine Power
7
Load Following Strategy
The engine is turned on at a certain power threshold. It then
provides the full wheel power, i.e. it is load following
8
Constant Optimal Engine Strategy
The engine is turned on at a certain power threshold. It then
operates at its optimal power. If the engine power is bigger than
the wheel power demand, the battery will be charged.
Battery
charging
9
Different Strategies Influence Energy Tradeoff –
How Do We Select The “Best” Control?
Mean Values
250
Conventional
Mean fuel consumption ranges Split 4kWh
200 from 2.5 to 5.5 l/100km Split 8kWh
Series 12kWh
electrical consumption [Wh/km]
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
fuel consumption [l/100km]
10
Kernel Density Will be Used to Compare
Control Options
11
Best Fuel Economy with “Differential Engine
Power” Strategy for the 4kWh Power Split
0.7
Differential
LoadEngPwr 10mi CD-range
0.6 DiffEngPwr max P_threshold engine power
OptEngPwr strategy (20 mi
DiffEngPwr 10mi CD-range
0.5 DiffEngPwr 20mi CD-range CD Range)
achieves highest
fuel efficiency
Density [-]
0.4
Performs
0.3
best
0.2 regarding
fuel
0.1
economy
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fuel Consumption [liter/100km]
Preliminary results
12
All Controls Share Same Peak Density,
Favoring Electrical Energy Leads to Lower Energy
Consumption Maximum Values
0.016
LoadEngPwr 10mi CD-range
DiffEngPwr max P_threshold
0.014
OptEngPwr
DiffEngPwr 10mi CD-range
0.012 DiffEngPwr 20mi CD-range
0.004
Depleting faster leads to higher
peak energy values
0.002
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Electrical Energy Consumption [Wh/mile]
4kWh Split Preliminary results
13
Number of Engine Starts Clearly Distinguishes
Control Strategies
0.4
LoadEngPwr 10mi CD-range
DiffEngPwr max P_threshold
0.35
OptEngPwr
DiffEngPwr 10mi CD-range
0.3 DiffEngPwr 20mi CD-range
0.25
Density [-]
0.1
0.05
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of starts per distance [#starts/mile]
Series 12kWh
Series 16kWh
150
100
50
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
fuel consumption [l/100km] Preliminary results
15
Higher Average Engine Efficiency (at its
maximum) for the Series Configuration
3.5
Series 12kWh Thermostat
(mean = 36.76 %, std = 0.696)
3 Series 16kWh Thermostat
(mean = 36.40 %, std = 1.254)
Split 4kWh Load Following 10miles CD-range
2.5 (mean = 35.48 %, std = 0.6720)
Split 8kWh Only Optimal Engine Power
(mean = 35.59 %, std = 0.5681)
2
Density [-]
1.5
0.5
-0.5
30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Average Engine Efficiency [%] Preliminary results
16
Future Activities
17
Summary
The analysis is only valid for the specific set of RWDC.
Several control strategies and set of parameters were
evaluated on Real World Drive Cycles.
Different controls were selected based on fuel efficiency and
drive quality.
Control selected varies depending on the battery energy.
– Load Following for 4kWh battery
– Optimum Engine for 8kWh battery
– Thermostat for 12 and 16 kWh battery
Impact of component operating conditions assessed
Preliminary comparison with J1711 shows fuel economy
under evaluated
18
References
D. Karbowski, “Fair Comparison of Powertrain Configurations for Plug-
In Hybrid Operation using Global Optimization”, SAE 2009-01-1334,
SAE World Congress, April 2009
Rousseau, A. Pagerit, S., Gao, D. (Tennessee Tech University) ,
"Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle control strategy parameter
optimization", Journal of Asian Electric Vehicles, Volume 6 Number 2
December 2008, ISSN 1348-3927
P. Sharer, A. Rousseau, D. Karbowski, S. Pagerit, “Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicle Control Strategy: Comparison between EV and
Charge-Depleting Options”, SAE paper 2008-01-0460, SAE World
Congress, Detroit (April 2008).
19