IET Control Theory & Applications

Research Article

Fuzzy gear shifting control optimisation to ISSN 1751-8644

Received on 2nd November 2018
Revised 21st May 2019
improve vehicle performance, fuel Accepted on 19th August 2019
E-First on 11th September 2019
consumption and engine emissions doi: 10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272
www.ietdl.org

Jony Javorski Eckert1 , Fabio M. Santiciolli1, Rodrigo Y. Yamashita1, Fernanda C. Corrêa2, Ludmila C.A.
Silva1, Franco G. Dedini1
1Integrated Systems Laboratory (LabSIn), Integrated Systems Department (DSI), University of Campinas - UNICAMP, 200 Mendeleyev Street,
Campinas 13083970, SP, Brazil
2Electrical Engineering Department, Federal Technological University of Paraná - UTFPR, Monteiro Lobato Avenue, Jardim Carvalho, Ponta

Grossa 84016210, PR, Brazil

E-mail: javorski@fem.unicamp.br

Abstract: This study presents a multiobjective optimisation applied to the gear shifting fuzzy control of a vehicle equipped with
an automated manual transmission (AMT), aiming to improve acceleration performance and reduce engine fuel consumption
and emissions. An Adaptive-Weight Genetic Algorithm was employed to find optimum fuzzy membership functions, according to
the input and output ranges, and also optimum control rules with their respective weights. The vehicle behaviour is represented
by longitudinal dynamics simulations developed in Simulink/Matlab™ interface, associated with the ADVISOR™ fuel converter
block, that provides the engine emissions and fuel consumption. These simulations were based on the FTP-75 emissions test
procedure, that considers cold and hot phases of the driving cycle evaluating the engine transient operation as a function of the
catalyst efficiency during the warm-up period. The optimum fuzzy control with the best trade-off among the optimisation criteria
presented 19.72% fuel saving associated with 12.90% hydrocarbon, 29.20% carbon monoxide and 17.02% nitrogen oxides
emissions reduction and an acceleration performance improvement when compared to a standard gear shifting procedure for a
manual controlled gearbox. Moreover, the optimised fuzzy gear shifting control, improves the relationship between fuel
consumption and emissions significantly, when compared to another optimum AMT control based on speed limits only.

1 Introduction parameter shift schedule (speed), two-parameters shift schedule

The growing number of motor vehicles increases traffic congestion
in urban areas, that is associated with air pollution caused by
vehicle exhaust emissions [1]. Moreover, conventional fuel engines
are responsible for the major parcel of greenhouse gas emissions
[2]. To control this pollution, governments have introduced several
regulations to reduce the vehicular emissions [3]. These regulations
stimulate automotive industries to develop vehicles with high
efficiency, low fuel consumption, and low emissions [4].
To overcome the imposed regulations, some vehicular
innovations were developed, as the enhancement of the combustion
engine operation control [5], alternative fuels and powertrain
configurations [6]. Moreover, new technologies for automated
manual transmission (AMT) have been developed, because it
combines advantages in fuel consumption, driving comfort and
shifting quality comparing to a manual transmission [7]. The
powertrain influence is discussed in [8] that present a multi-
objective optimisation of the vehicle gearbox, considering 4, 5 and
6 speeds configurations gearboxes, that results in 7.5% reduction in
fuel consumption and 6.75% less nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.
Furthermore, [9] monitors the vehicle emissions by GPS data, that
enables definition of the engine regime, once the majority of the
tailpipe emission is generated in the cold engine conditions.
According to the powertrain configuration, the gear shifting
strategy determines the correct gear to use in a certain moment and
defines whether it is necessary to shift. Furthermore, changing the
transmission ratio between the engine and vehicle traction wheels
moves the engine operation point (output torque and speed) to a
different region, which modifies the fuel consumption, emissions
and engine generated heat [10]. Moreover, the vehicle performance
is also affected by the chosen gear ratio, according to the available
engine power in the selected operation point and the transmission
ratio that limits the available output torque at the traction wheels
[11]. Therefore, in order to define the most adequated gear, the
shift strategy can take into account different inputs: single
IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
(speed and throttle opening) and dynamic three-parameter shift
schedule (speed, acceleration and throttle opening) [12].
In a previous work [10], an optimisation algorithm was
developed to improve vehicle performance, emissions and fuel
consumption as a function of gear shift strategies for the same
vehicle and driving cycle analysed in this current paper. The results
of the paper [10] indicated the speed limits that a gear shift may
occur. By analysing the optimisation solutions, it was noted that the
gear shifting strategies (the speed limits) that provide minimum
emissions make the engine work in a higher speed than the
suggested speed by the vehicle manufacturer [13], due to the
necessity to quickly warm-up the engine in cold start phase,
increasing the catalyst efficiency. However, this behaviour
(postponing the upshift) increases the fuel consumption, because
the proposed gear shifting strategy keeps the same engine regime
for all cycle, even in the stabilised and hot start phases of the
FTP-75 cycle.
Therefore, this paper focuses on the improvement of the gear
shifting control of the AMT system, considering the optimisation
of fuzzy logic control. The paper [14] showed that the fuzzy
controller is the state of art regarding the management of complex
vehicular systems focused on low fuel consumption and emissions,
but maintaining or improving performance. It happens because of
the fuzzy controller characteristics. The first one is that the fuzzy
controller deals well with uncertain data, like noise on the
acquisition system, and ill-defined or not existed model [15]. The
second reason is that the fuzzy controller can be applied in a multi-
input multi-output (MIMO) system, enabling the use of the state
system. The states of a vehicle are important for the execution of
its control [16, 17] thus the fuzzy controller can be applied for the
execution of optimum gear shifts because this controller can be
tuned regarding a wide range of boundary conditions. As the fuzzy
controller can be applied on MIMO systems, it allows many
feedback variables as engine temperature, vehicle speed, required
2658
 17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 1 Simulated vehicle parameters [10, 27]
Components Gearbox position
First Second Third Fourth Fifth
gear ratio (Nt) 4.27 2.35 1.48 1.05 0.8
2 −3
gear inertia (It), kg m × 10 1.7 2.2 2.9 3.9 5.4
2
engine inertia (Ie) kg m 0.1367
2
differential inertia (Id) kg m 9.22 × 10−4
2
Wheels inertia (Iw), kg m 2
Fig. 1 FTP-75 driving cycle [22, 23]
differential ratio (Nd) 4.87
torque, and acceleration at the same time. Besides that, the fuzzy powertrain efficiency (ηtd) 0.9
parameters can also be optimised by a genetic algorithm as total vehicle mass (M), kg 980
presented by [18] that proposes a new method to optimise the fuzzy
vehicle frontal area (A), m2 1.8
sets, and [19] applied the fuzzy optimisation.
Finally, the main objective of this study is to provide an drag coefficient (Cd) 0.33
optimised fuzzy logic gear shifting control for an AMT system, tires 175/70 R13 radii (rg), m 0.2876
that results in minimum emissions associated with minimum fuel tire peak friction coefficient ( μ) 0.9
consumption. The proposed control considered the engine
wheelbase (L) [m] 2.443
temperature (that influences the catalyst efficiency) as an input,
associated with the engine speed and the required traction torque gravity center height (h), m 0.53
estimated by the vehicle longitudinal dynamic formulation. As rear axle to gravity center (c), m 1.460
output, the fuzzy operator provides the upshift and downshift clutch friction coefficient ( μcl) 0.27
commands to the vehicle AMT according to the driving condition. clutch external radius (Ro), mm 95
The fuzzy AMT control is optimised by the technique previously
clutch internal radius (Ri), mm 67
presented in [19], that was developed to define optimum
membership functions, however, in the present paper, it is added number of clutch faces (n) 2
the ability to optimise the control rules with their respective vehicle speed V, m/s 0 16.67 25 33.33 41.67
weights as well as the capacity to define the most suitable kv(V) factor 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.4
defuzzification method.

2 Material and methods 1 2

2.1 Vehicle longitudinal dynamics model
The vehicle model is based on the movement resistance forces
equations presented by [20], that estimates the vehicle aerodynamic
drag DA [N], tires rolling resistance Rx [N] and the vehicle/
powertrain inertias.
The driver behaviour is represented by a driving cycle that
defines whether the vehicle is at rest, accelerating or decelerating,
or at constant speed [21], and if applicable the road slope. In this
paper, it was chosen the FTP-75 standard driving cycle (Fig. 1) that
provides the target speed in function of time. This cycle is used for
vehicle emission evaluation in several countries as US [24], Brazil
[22] and Australia [23]. The driving cycle is divided into four
stages: The first one is the cold start (0–505 s), where the vehicle is
initially at ambient temperature (20° C), resulting in low catalyst
efficiency and high emissions. The stabilised phase (505–1371 s),
where the engine temperature is controlled by the cooling system,
and the catalyst efficiency is at maximum. After the stabilised
phase, the engine is turned off and the vehicle remains parked until
the 2000 s when the hot start experiment is performed, repeating
the cold start speed profile, but now with the engine heated by the
previous cold start and stabilised phase experiments.
The vehicle required acceleration areq [m/s2] is defined by the
(1), in function of the vehicle speed V [m/s], and the cycle target
speed V t [m/s], that corresponds to the speed one time step Δt [s]
ahead the current simulation time.
Vt − V
areq = (1)
Δt
The movement resistance forces are estimated according to the
vehicle speed V, the (2) calculates the tires rolling resistance Rx [N]
in relation to the vehicle mass M [kg] and the (3) estimates
aerodynamic drag Da [N] as a function of the air density ρ [kg/m3],
vehicle projected frontal area A [m2] and the drag coefficient Cd.
2.24 V
Rx = 0.0981 1 + M (2)
100
DA = ρV Cd A (3)
2
Once the movement resistance forces are defined, the required
traction torque T rw [Nm] is calculated the (4), that defines the
torques for the vehicle powertrain T rp [Nm] and brake system T rb
[Nm]. If T rw ≤ 0 the torque is applied by the vehicle brake system,
T rb = T rw, on the other hand, if T rw > 0 this power demand will be
fulfiled by the vehicle powertrain (5).
T rw = Mareq + Rx + DA r (4)
[T rp = 0 and T rb = T rw] if T rw ≤ 0
[T rp T rb] = (5)
[T rp = T rw and T rb = 0] if T rw > 0
The braking simulation is done by a simplified method, that
considers that the vehicle is able to provide the exact required T rb
to the vehicle wheels. This simplification is possible because the
engine runs at cutoff regime (null fuel injection) when the driver is
not triggering the throttle pedal and the engine is not at the idle
stage.
Positive values of T rw are provided by the vehicle powertrain
system, and the engine operating point is defined according to the
gearbox transmission ratio, whose control is optimised in this
paper. The engine required torque T req [Nm] to reach the cycle
target speed is provided by the (6), where Ie [kgm2], It [kgm2], Id
[kgm2] and Iw [kgm2] are the engine, gearbox, differential and
wheels inertias, respectively, Nt and Nd represent the gearbox and
differential transmission ratios and ηtd is the powertrain overall
mechanical efficiency.
areq
T rp + ((Ie + It)(NtNd)2 + IdNd2 + Iw) r
T req = (6)
NtNdηtd
The tire dynamic radius r [m] is calculated by the (7) as
suggested by [25], that applies a corrective factor kv(V) (Table 1) to
estimate dynamic effects in function of the tire static radius, that is
defined by [26] as 98% of the tire radius rg (standard tire size).

IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669 2659
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
r = 0.98rg(1 + 0.01kv(V)) (7)

Once the required torque T req, is defined, it is compared to the

engine maximum torque T ICE [Nm] provided by the 100% throttle
curve (Fig. 2a), to define the torque applied as an input in the
clutch.
The clutch transmissible torque T cl [Nm] is defined by the (8),
according to the clutch friction coefficient μcl, internal and external
disks radii Ri [m] and Ro [m], and the spring force Fn [N] applied
between the disks, that is determined by the graphical method
shown in Fig. 2b, as a function of the clutch pedal displacement
(CPD).

2 Ro3 − Ri3
T cl = μclFnN 2 (8)
3 Ro − Ri2

When the clutch is closed, it is designed to transmit the

maximum engine torque. During the gear shifts, the clutch
decouples the ICE from the gearbox, to enable the transmission
ratio change, considering a gear shift time of 1 s [10, 27], of which
the first 0.3 s are responsible for decoupling the ICE (CPD = 0 to
CPD = 100 mm). In the next 0.2 s, with the ICE completely
decoupled, the AMT control changes the gear (CPD = 100 mm), at
the remaining 0.5 s, the clutch gradually recouples the disks (CPD
= 100 to CPD =0).
Finally, the gearbox input torque T t [Nm] is defined by the (9), Fig. 2 Engine torque curves and clutch normal force Fn [N] [10]
as the minimum value among the required T req, maximum T ICE and (a) Torque curves as a function of the throttle percentage, (b) Clutch normal force Fn
transmissible T cl torque.

T t = min T req T ICE T cl (9)

The available traction Fx [N] is calculated by the (10),

considering ax = areq as an initial approach to define the vehicle
real acceleration ax [m/s2].

T tNtNdηtd ax
Fx = − ((Ie + It)(NtNd)2 + IdNd2 + Iw) 2 (10)
r r
However, the tires present a maximum transmissible force in
the contact, and it limits the vehicle acceleration performance. The
maximum tire traction force Fmax [N] is defined by the (11)
according to the tire-ground friction coefficient μ, the vehicle
wheelbase L [m], gravity centre height h [m], the longitudinal
distance between the rear axle and the gravity center c [m] and the
vehicle weight W [kg].
Wc Mh ax
Fmax = μ − (11)
2L 2L
The effective traction force Ft [N] will be the lower value
between the available Fx and maximum Fmax traction forces,
therefore Fx = Fmaxi f Fx ≥ Fmax or Ft = Fxi f Fx < Fmax . The vehicle
longitudinal acceleration ax [m/s2] is calculated by
Fig. 3 Tire slip coefficient in the function of the traction force Ft
The speed V [m/s] is defined by numeric integration of ax by
ODE45 provided by the Simulink™ database. The engine speed ωe
[rad/s] is then calculated by the (14), according to the transmission
ratio (NtNd), tire dynamic radius r [m] and the tire slipping
coefficient e that estimates the difference between the tire
tangential speed and the vehicle displacement speed, as a function
of the traction force Ft as shown in the Fig. 3.
V NdNt
ωe = (14)
r(1 − e)
2.1.1 Vehicle parameters.: Table 1 shows the parameters for the
simulated vehicle based on the 1.0L engine frontal traction
Brazilian Chevrolet Celta™.

Ft − Rx − DA
ax = (12) 2.1.2 ADVISOR™ engine model.: Once the engine operation
M point (T e and ωe) is defined, the fuel consumption (FC) [l] and
emissions (hydrocarbon (HC) [g/km] NOx [g/km] and carbon
However, the traction force Ft is a function of the acceleration
monoxide (CO) [g/km]) are calculated by the ADVISOR™ fuel
ax in both limiting criteria (available traction force and tire
converter block as in [10], according to the maps shown in the Fig.
transmissible force), therefore, the available (Fx) and maximum
4. ADVISOR™ is a free vehicular simulation tool developed by
(Fmax) forces need to be recalculated in an iterative process among [28], that contains engine specific fuel consumption and emissions
the (10)–(12). After the convergence, the engine effective torque T e maps from tests performed according to FTP standards for transient
[Nm] is defined by regimes.
In the simulations, the engine starts considering the ambient
Ftr ax temperature of 20° C, and according to the operation regime, the
Te = + ((Ie + It)(NtNd)2 + IdNd2 + Iw) (13)
NtNdηtd r ADVISOR™ fuel converter block estimates the generated
combustion heat and its transfer by the tailpipe, changing the
catalyst efficiency that is multiplied by the emissions maps outputs.

2660 IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 4 Engine maps for fuel consumption and emissions [10, 28]
(a) Specific fuel consumption, (b) Specific CO emissions, (c) Specific NOx emissions,
(d) Specific HC emissions
2.2 Optimisable fuzzy logic gear shift control
The AMT is controlled by Mamdani fuzzy (Matlab™ toolbox)
inference system, and the fuzzy control is optimised using a genetic
algorithm. The optimisation process occurs off-line, and the
optimum fuzzy control with the best trade-off among the
optimisation criteria is used to operate in real-time the AMT
system. The fuzzy AMT control has three membership functions
inputs. The first one is the engine speed, with the range between
the maximum allowed (6500 rpm) and the idle speed (900 rpm) of
the engine, and it is divided into three triangular stages: low,
normal, and high.
The second input is the wheels required traction torque T rp (5),
that considers only the powertrain traction torque. This
membership function range is defined from null until 1500 Nm,
that is the maximum tire-ground transmissible torque. This input is
also divided into three stages: low (triangular), normal (triangular)
and high that is trapezoidal because the traction torque T rp usually
does not reach the limit (1500 Nm), allowing the optimisation
IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
algorithm to find, a point T 6 that defines where the input torque
will be considered maximum High.
The third input is the engine temperature, that affects directly
the tailpipe emission during the cold start section of the FTP-75
cycle. This membership function is divided into three triangular
stages: cold, heating, and hot, with a range between the ambient
temperature (20° C) and the engine ideal running temperature (95°
C), controlled by the cooling system.
The output membership function presents unitary range, and it
is composed of three stages: downshift (trapezoidal) that aims to
increase the transmission ratio, keep gear (triangular) resulting in
maintaining the current gear, and upshift (trapezoidal) that aims at
the decrease of the transmission ratio. Therefore, the fuzzy output
has value 0 ≤ FZ ≤ 1, that is used to control the AMT to define the
1 ≤ Gear ≤ 5 to be used according to the current gear Gi. The gear-
shifting process follows the rules shown by the (15), as a function
of the inferior Li and superior Ls limits, that are also defined as
design variables in the optimisation process. However, some rules
override the FZ command, as the gearbox neutral position
(Gear = 0) that acts when the speed is null (V = 0) and there is not
a throttle signal input. The engine maximum (ωe = 6500 rpm) and
minimum (ωe = 900 rpm) speeds acts as constraints. Fig. 5 shows
the membership functions and the points that can be alternated by
the optimisation process
FZ < Li and Gi > 1 ∴ Gear = Gi − 1
Li ≤ FZ ≤ Ls ∴ Gear = Gi
FZ > LS and Gi < 5 ∴ Gear = Gi + 1
Gear = (15)
V = 0 and null throttle ∴ Gear = 0
ωe ≤ 94 and Gi > 0 ∴ Gear = Gi − 1
ωe ≥ 681 and Gi ≤ 4 ∴ Gear = Gi + 1
For each membership function, a vector that contains the
alterable design variables is created: R for the engine speed input
(16), T for the traction torque input (17), C for the engine
temperature input (18) and G for AMT control output (19).
R = [R1 R2 R3 R4 R5] (16)
T = [T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 5 T 6] (17)
C = [C1 C2 C3 C4 C5] (18)
G = [G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7] (19)
The rules with their respective weights are also optimised. The
control is composed of 27 rules FR(n) (1 ≤ n ≤ 27) that represent all
combinations among the three inputs, and for each rule, the
optimisation algorithm selects one of the three possible outputs:
downshift (FR(n) = 1), keep gear (FR(n) = 2) or upshift (FR(n) = 3),
and defines the rules weights 0 ≤ RW(n) ≤ 1. The Table 2 shows the
rules and weights.
In the same way, as the membership function design variables,
the rules and weights are also combined in vectors.
FR = [FR1 FR2 FR3 … FR25 FR26 FR27] (20)
RW = [RW 1 RW 2 RW 3 … RW 25 RW 26 RW 27] (21)
The defuzzification method is also optimised among the five
options provided by the fuzzy mamdani toolbox. The
defuzzification method is represented by the design variable
1 ≤ DF ≤ 5 where centroid (DF = 1), bisector (DF = 2), mom
(DF = 3), lom (DF = 4) and som (DF = 5).
2.3 Problem formulation
The optimisation is based on three criteria that provide trade-off
solutions among minimum fuel consumption and emissions in the
same way as improving vehicle acceleration performance. The first
2661
 17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
a function of FTP-75 V cs, and the simulated V s speeds, discretised
in s intervals of 0.1 s [10], and the mean values V¯ c and V̄ of the
simulated and standard profiles.

∑ V cs − V¯ c V s − V̄
2

R= (23)
∑ V cs − V¯ c ∑ V s − V̄
2 2

To provide the third minimisation criteria, the performance is

defined by the difference among R and 1, that represents the perfect
match between both analysed speed profiles. Therefore, the
optimisation criteria for each solution X are

f 1(X) = min FC(X) (24)

f 2(X) = min EF(X) (25)

f 3(X) = min 1 − R(X) (26)

The minimisation criteria are subjected to the constraints presented

in (27). To avoid poor performance solutions, an acceptable limit
was defined as (1 − R)max = 8.9 × 10−04, that corresponds to the
performance reached by the vehicle using a standard gear shifting
strategy based on speed limits proposed by [13] and previously
evaluated in [10]. The configurations that do not attempt to
(1 − R) > (1 − R)max are discarded from the database.

0 < R2 < R1 < R5 < R4 < 6500

R2 < R3 < R4
0 < T 2 < T 1 < T 5 < T 4 < 1500
Fig. 5 Fuzzy membership functions T2 < T3 < T4
(a) Engine speed input, (b) Required traction torque input, (c) Engine temperature T 3 < T 6 < 1500
input, (d) AMT control output
20 < C2 < C1 < C5 < C4 < 95
Table 2 Fuzzy control rules C2 < C3 < C4
Engine Traction Engine temperature C = 0 < G3 < G2 < G4 < G5 < 1 (27)
speed torque Cold Heating Hot 0 < G1 < G4 < G7 < 1
low low [FR1 RW 1] [FR2 RW 2] [FR3 RW 3] G3 < G4 < G5
normal [FR4 RW 4] [FR5 RW 5] [FR6 RW 6] 1 ≤ FR(n) ≤ 3
high [FR7 RW 7] [FR8 RW 8] [FR9 RW 9] 0 ≤ RW(n) ≤ 1
normal low [FR10 RW 10] [FR11 RW 11] [FR12 RW 12]
1 ≤ FZ ≤ 5
normal [FR13 RW 13] [FR14 RW 14] [FR15 RW 15]
0 ≤ Li < Ls ≤ 1
high [FR16 RW 16] [FR17 RW 17] [FR18 RW 18]
high low [FR19 RW 19] [FR20 RW 20] [FR21 RW 21]
(1 − R)max = 8.9 × 10−04
normal [FR22 RW 22] [FR23 RW 23] [FR24 RW 24]
2.4 Interactive adaptive-weight genetic algorithm (i-AWGA)
high [FR25 RW 25] [FR26 RW 26] [FR27 RW 27]
To define the trade-off optimum solutions, the i-AWGA [29]
technique is applied. The initial results were based on 50 sets with
optimisation criterion is minimising the fuel consumption FC that random design variables, according to the constraints C (27). Each
is a direct output of the ADVISOR™ engine simulation. design variables set is combined in a vector X denominated
The second optimisation criterion minimises the engine chromosome as shows the (28).
emissions, that also are provided by the ADVISOR™. The X = [R T C G FR RWFZ Li Ls] (28)
emissions are divided into CO (g/km), NOx (g/km) and HC (g/km)
and need to be condensed into a single optimisation criterion, that
Each chromosome X are simulated, and stored in database
is denominated emissions factor (EF) as in [28]. The (22) defines a
value 0 ≤ EF(X) ≤ 3, based on the adaptive-weight technique denominated population, with the respective results for the
optimisation criteria f k(X). The i-AWGA technique classifies the
proposed by [29] that calculates a value between 0 and 1 for each
emission gas, according to the maximum and minimum values population according to the maximum f kmax and minimum f kmin
presented in the solution database. values of each optimisation criterion, compared to the analysed
solution f k(X). A penalty value Pp = 0 is assigned to the
CO(X) − COmin NOx(X) − NOxmin HC(X) − HCmin dominated solutions (that are fully surmounted in all optimisation
EF(X) = + +
COmax − COmin NOxmax − NOxmin HCmax − HCmin criteria), on the other hand, for the non-dominated compromised
(22) solutions (also known as Pareto frontier) it is assigned a Pp = 1
value. The fitness value Ft(X) used to classify the population is
The third optimisation criterion is the vehicle performance, that given by the (29).
is defined by comparing the simulated speed profile and the
standard FTP-75 cycle. As in [27, 30], the vehicle performance is
measured by the correlation coefficient R calculated by the (23) as

2662 IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

3 convergence, the fuzzy AMT control configurations, presented in
f kmax − f k(X)
Ft(X) = ∑ f kmax − f kmin
+ Pp(X)
k=1
2.4.1 Selection, crossover and mutation.: After classification
according to the Ft(X) value, two solutions that are denominated
member 1 (M1) and member 2 (M2) are randomly selected from the
population by the roulette wheel technique, that increases the
selection probability SP(X) for the higher Ft(X) among the
population members (1 ≤ X ≤ PM) as shows (30).
Ft(X)
SP(X) = PM
∑X = 1 Ft(X)
The crossover operator combines the design variables (or sets of
fuzzy design variables) presented in the chromosomes of X(M1)
and X(M2) to generate new solutions. The combination is
performed by defining the crossover operator 0 ≤ Cr(v) ≤ 1 using
the Matlab™ function rand. If Cr(v) ≤ 0.5, the crossover keeps the
design variable from M1 (vM1), on the other hand if Cr(v) > 0.5 the
design variable will be provided by M2 (vM2).
The fuzzy membership function points will be combined with
their respective vectors (R, T, C, G, FR and RW) to avoid
unstable chromosomes that do not respect the constraints C. The
crossover chromosome XCr is simulated and the results are
included in the population if the acceptable performance limit was
satisfied.
To insert new design variables values into population, the
mutation operator randomly changes some of the values of the
crossover chromosome XCr. Differently of the crossover operator,
the mutation process is applied for each design variable
(1 ≤ j ≤ 80), including the ones stored in vectors (R, T, C, G, FR
and RW). The algorithm defines random value of the mutation
operator 0 ≤ Mt( j) ≤ 1. If Mt( j) < 0.5, the mutation operator
keeps the value of the crossover chromosome XMt( j) = XCr( j), on the
other hand, if Mt( j) ≥ 0.5, the design variables will be mutated
according to the mut values shown in the Table 3.
If the mutated chromosome XCr meets the constraints C (27), it
is simulated and the results are included in the population if the
performance constraint is satisfied.
2.4.2 Population limit and convergence criterion.: The
crossover and mutation operators increase the population size PS.
When the population reaches a limit value of Plim = 100, the
algorithm eliminates the higher Pareto ranking solutions (worst
results) from the database. To avoid eliminating the whole
population, when it becomes composed only of the Pareto frontier
(rank=1), and reaches Plim size, this limit increases as
Plim = Plim + 50.
The algorithm convergence is determined by the repeatability of
the Pareto frontier of non-dominated solutions for 50 generations,
which indicates the stagnation of the evolution process. After
17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
(29) final Pareto frontier, are considered as optimum compromised
solutions. Among these solutions, the most promising ones are
analysed in the next section.
3 Results and discussion
The algorithm convergence results in the 3D pareto frontier of non-
dominated solutions among the three convergence criteria as shows
the Fig. 6. The best-compromised solution is the one that presents
the highest fitness value max (Ft) among the Pareto frontier
solutions. Among the optimum solutions presented in Fig. 6, four
(30) solutions are selected: The fuel economy solution (min f 1), the low
emissions solution (min f 2), the best performance solution
(min f 3), and the compromised solution (max Ft).
Analysing the optimised solution, it was possible to observe
that the performance improvement is directly associated with fuel
consumption increase (Fig. 6d). The best performance (min f 3) and
fuel economy (min f 1) solutions present a high value for the EF
(Figs. 6a and b), and the low emissions min f 2 and best
compromised (max Ft) solutions present close behaviour, both
located in an intermediary consumption/performance regime (Fig.
6d) that decreases the engine tailpipe emissions.
To provide a standard result to be compared to the optimised
solutions, an alternative gear shift control based on speed limits
(same used as acceptable performance limit constraint) is defined
as a standard solution. The Table 4 shows the four selected
optimum solutions reached results, and Table 5 exposes their
respective chromosomes.
The vehicle behaviour using the standard gear shifting strategy
is shown in Fig. 7, where it is possible to observe the resulting gear
shifting and speed profiles, engine speed and temperature during
the 2500 s of the FTP-75 driving cycle. This standard solution is
fully dominated by the optimised configurations, and it is only used
to provide a comparison with the optimised ones.
3.1 Fuel economy solution
The fuel economy solution (min f 1) presents the lowest fuel
consumption to perform the FTP-75 driving cycle, presenting
24.49% fuel saving with 8.99% performance improvement as
compared to the standard solution. The tailpipe emissions present
values close to the standard solution (-13.19% NOx, +10.34% CO
and −2.15% HC), but the resultant EF is higher than the min f 2
and max Ft as shown in Table 4. The high EF of the fuel economy
solution as compared to the low emissions (min f 2) and the best
compromised (max Ft) solutions, is resultant of the engine warm-
up period increase as shows the Fig. 8.
The fuel economy solution keeps the engine operating at low
speed. In almost all cycle this strategy provides an upshift before
the engine reaches 3000 rpm, as shows the Fig. 9, reaching the
fourth and fifth gears in all acceleration sections, saving fuel
because it is a higher efficiency region of the specific fuel
consumption map (Fig. 4a). Furthermore, running the engine at

Table 3 Mutation operator

Design Crossover Mutation operator Mutated
variable chromosome 0 ≥ Mt( j) ≥ 1 chromosome
j [XCr]T Mt( j) < 0.5 Mt( j) ≥ 0.5 [XMt]T
1≤ j≤5 R( j) Rmut( j) = 0 −1500 ≤ Rmut( j) ≤ 1500 R( j) + Rmut( j)
6 ≤ j ≤ 11 T ( j − 5) T mut( j − 5) = 0 −300 ≤ T mut( j − 5) ≤ 300 T ( j − 5) + T mut( j − 5)
12 ≤ j ≤ 16 C( j − 11) Cmut( j − 11) = 0 −30 ≤ Cmut( j − 11) ≤ 30 C( j − 11) + Cmut( j − 11)
17 ≤ j ≤ 23 G( j − 16) Gmut( j − 16) = 0 −0.3 ≤ Gmut( j − 16) ≤ 0.3 G( j − 16) + Gmut( j − 16)
24 ≤ j ≤ 50 FR( j − 23) FRmut( j − 23) = FR( j − 23) integer value (1 ≤ FRmut( j − 23) ≤ 3) FRmut( j − 23)
51 ≤ j ≤ 77 RW( j − 50) RWmut( j − 50) = RW( j − 50) 0 ≤ RWmut( j − 50) ≤ 1 RWmut( j − 50)
j = 78 FZ FZmut = FZ integer value (1 ≤ FZmut ≤ 5) FZmut
j = 79 Ls Lsmut = Ls 0 ≤ Lsmut ≤ 1 Lsmut
j = 80 Li Limut = Li 0 ≤ Limut ≤ 1 Limut

IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669 2663
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 6 Engine maps for fuel consumption and gaseous emissions
(a) f 1 × f 2 × f 3, (b) f 1 × f 2, (c) f 2 × f 3, (d) f 1 × f 3

Table 4 Reached results of the selected solutions Table 5 Chromosomes of the selected solutions
Results Solutions X Solutions
Standard min f 1 min f 2 min f 3 max Ft min f 1 min f 2 min f 3 max Ft
FC [l] 1.47 1.11 1.17 1.64 1.18 R [4235 1992 [2481 1355 [2481 1355 [2481 1355
EF — 2.11 0.16 2.21 0.25 4029 5019 4638 5962 4638 5606 4638 5962
1−R 0.00089 0.00081 0.00015 0.00009 0.00013 4994] 3329] 2831] 3329]
distance, km 17.59 17.60 17.73 17.76 17.73 T [459 220 616 [367 241 454 [221 140 454 [344 241 454
999 727 1229] 680 515 1257] 680 474 1257] 680 515 1326]
NOx, g/km 0.235 0.204 0.192 0.360 0.195
C [29.61 29.41 [64.79 24.07 [29.61 29.41 [24.71 20.73
CO, g/km 1.911 1.977 1.397 1.680 1.353
49.30 69.35 47.07 84.58 49.30 69.35 63.30 92.17
HC, g/km 0.279 0.273 0.238 0.262 0.243 67.18] 67.50] 67.18] 66.16]
Ft — 2.72 3.85 3.02 3.86 G [ 0.3 0.31 0.09 [0.30 0.31 0.12 [0.31 0.35 0.20 [0.31 0.35 0.20
0.54 0.92 0.54 0.54 0.82 0.75 0.43 0.57 0.40 0.43 0.57 0.40
0.59 ] 0.85] 0.75 ] 0.75]
low speed provides less ignition per time interval, saving fuel, but FZ bisector bisector mom bisector
prolonging the engine warm-up period (where the majority of the Li 0.0785 0.1028 0.0668 0.0785
engine emissions are generated), increasing the tailpipe emissions
because of the longer transient regime period, until the catalyst Ls 0.5520 0.5520 0.8027 0.5520
reaches maximum efficiency.
The second parameter that influences the engine emissions are
the maps shown in Figs. 4b–d, that provides different amounts of cycle section, decreasing the emissions of NOx and HC. On the
tailpipe gases, as a function of the operation region. This effect is other hand, the CO emissions do not decrease enough to
observed when the fuel economy and the standard solutions are compensate the lower catalyst efficiency at the warm-up period and
compared, even with the standard solution providing a quicker therefore, the fuel economy solution results in 10.34% more CO
warm-up period (that improves the catalyst efficiency at the cold than the standard one.
start phase), this solution generates more NOx and HC than the The fuel economy optimised fuzzy logic membership functions
fuel economy strategy (Table 4). Even with the lower catalyst are shown in Fig. 10, and the rules with their respective weights are
efficiency at the start-up period, the fuel economy strategy runs the presented in the Table 6.
engine at better NOx and HC operation points during the remaining
2664 IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 7 Vehicle behaviour using the standard solution

Fig. 8 Engine warm-up according to the gear shifting strategy Fig. 10 Membership functions of the fuel economy solution
(a) Engine speed input, (b) Required traction torque input, (c) Engine temperature
input, (d) AMT control output

Fig. 11 Performance using the standard gear shifting profile

(a) Standard, (b) Legend

Fig. 9 Vehicle behaviour using the fuel economy solution The min f 3 solution ensures the best performance by
postponing the upshifts, that decrease the vehicle speed due to the
Table 6 Minimum fuel consumption Fuzzy control rules and engine torque supply interruption by the clutch decoupling during
weights the gear shifting process. These performance losses caused by
Engine temperature consecutive gear shiftings are clearly observed in the fuel economy
Engine Traction Cold Heating Hot solution (Fig. 12a) that anticipates the upshift, quickly reaching the
speed torque Output-weight [FR(n) - RW(n) ] fourth and fifth gears, reducing the available traction torque, that
does not enable the vehicle to reach the target speed even with the
low low keep-0.97 down-0.98 down-0.30
use of the maximum engine torque. On the other hand, the best
normal up-0.74 keep-0.97 down-0.52 performance solution only upshifts until the third gear (Fig. 12c),
high down-0.19 keep-0.21 keep-0.64 reaching the engine maximum speed (6500 rpm) several times as
normal low up-0.69 keep-0.45 down-0.48 shows the Fig. 13, that allows high available traction torque, but
normal keep-0.74 up-0.33 up-0.83 increases the fuel consumption and emissions by operating the
high down-0.67 keep-0.86 up-0.64 engine at poor efficiency regions.
Even with the quicker engine temperature increase (Fig. 8), that
high low up-0.74 keep-0.67 up-0.53
provides better catalyst efficiency during the cold start phase of the
normal keep-0.71 keep-0.24 down-0.99 cycle, the best performance solution presents the worst EF value
high up-0.85 up-0.48 down-0.58 among the optimum solutions (Figs. 6b and c). These phenomena
occur because of the engine operation region at low torque and
high speed, that results in high CO, NOx and HC emissions even
3.2 Best performance solution with the catalyst efficiency improvement at the beginning of the
cycle. However, the best performance solution decreases in 12.02%
The best performance solution (min f 3) presents the speed profile
CO and 6.09% HC emissions as compared to the standard solution,
closer to the FTP-75 as compared to the other analysed solutions. but with 53.19% more NOx associated with 11.56% fuel
Figs. 11 and 12 present the gear shifting profile of the high-speed consumption increase. The best performance optimised fuzzy logic
stretch of the hot start phase of the FTP-75 cycle (2140 to 2190 s).

IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669 2665
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 12 Vehicle performance and gear shifting profile
(a) Fuel economy min f 1, (b) Low emissions min f 2, (c) Best performance min f 3, (d)
Best compromisse max Ft
membership functions are shown in Fig. 14, and the rules and
weights are presented in the Table 7.
3.3 Low emissions solution
The low emissions solution (min f 2) results in −18.30% NOx,
−26.90%CO and −6.09% HC as compared to the standard solution,
with 20.41% fuel saving. This solution mixes some characteristics
of the previously analyzed gear shifting control strategies. To
ensure low fuel consumption, the low emission strategy anticipates
the upshifts, presenting behaviour close to the fuel economy
solution (Figs. 12a and b), keeping the engine running at a good
efficiency region in the stabilised and hot start phases of the cycle.
On the other hand, to avoid the low catalyst efficiency during the
engine warm-up period, the (min f 2) solution presents gear shifting
behaviour close to the best performance solution, in the cold start
phase of the cycle as shows the Fig. 15a that presents the same
cycle stretch previously shown in the Fig. 12 (but for the cold start
phase), where is possible to compare the difference between the
gear shifting profiles caused by the engine temperature input
control.
2666
17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Fig. 13 Vehicle behaviour using the best performance solution
Fig. 14 Membership functions of the best performance solution
(a) Engine speed input, (b) Required traction torque input, (c) Engine temperature
input, (d) AMT control output
This behaviour is also used by best-compromised solution as
shows the Fig. 15b, but in this case, it does not postpone the third
to the fourth upshift until the engine speed limit to save fuel. The
gear shifting profile, engine speed, temperature and resultant
vehicle speed are shown in Fig. 16. The fuzzy rules and weights
are presented in the Table 8, and the membership functions shown
in Fig. 17.
3.4 Compromised solution
The best-compromised solution (max Ft) is located in the best
region in the relation of performance versus fuel consumption (Fig.
6d) and close to the low emissions solution, that ensure the best
trade-off among the three optimisation criteria evaluated, saving
19.72% fuel as compared to the standard solution, with -17.02%
NOx, -29.20% CO and -12.90% HC emissions. This solution also
presents an expressive improvement in the vehicle performance
reducing the 1 − R relation from 0.00089 (standard) to 0.00013
(max Ft). The simulated vehicle dynamic behaviour and gear
shifting profile are presented by Fig. 18.
The best compromised solution presents behaviour close to the
low emissions solution as shown in the Figs. 6c and e and Table 4,
IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 7 Best performance Fuzzy control rules Table 8 Minimum emissions consumption fuzzy control
Engine temperature rules and weights
Engine Traction Cold Heating Hot Engine temperature
speed torque Output-weight [FR(n) − RW(n)] Engine Traction Cold Heating Hot
low low down-0.41 up-0.49 down-0.02 speed torque Output-weight [FR(n) − RW(n)]
normal up-0.73 down-0.58 keep-0.87 low low keep-0.15 keep-0.58 keep-0.59
high down-0.85 down-0.01 up-0.06 normal up-0.57 down-0.90 down-0.88
normal low keep-0.21 up-0.95 up-0.80 high down-0.18 keep-0.64 down-0.11
normal keep-0.72 down-0.40 up-0.52 normal low keep-0.20 down-0.77 keep-0.87
high down-0.13 up-0.24 down-0.26 normal down-0.84 down-0.01 up-0.35
high low down-0.34 up-0.99 up-0.18 high down-0.65 keep-0.72 keep-0.40
normal up-0.94 keep-0.56 down-0.72 high low keep-0.65 down-0.30 down-0.72
high down-0.51 keep-0.63 keep-0.81 normal up-0.99 up-0.30 up-0.88
high up-0.88 up-0.31 up-0.96

Fig. 15 Vehicle performance and gear shifting profile

(a) Low emissions min f 2, (b) Best compromisse max Ft
Fig. 17 Membership functions of the low emissions solution
(a) Engine speed input, (b) Required traction torque input, (c) Engine temperature
input, (d) AMT control output

Finally, it was observed that the best compromised and the low
emissions solutions (among others with close behaviour) were able
to fully dominate the standard gear shifting control results.

3.5 Comparison with the optimum gear shifting strategies

Fig. 16 Vehicle behaviour using the low emissions solution
but presenting a small improvement of the vehicle performance
(0.00015-min f 2 to 0.00013-max Ft). The best-compromised
solution provides a decrease of 3.15% in the CO emission, but an
increase of the NOx and HC in 1.56 and 2.1%, respectively. The
best-compromised solution fuzzy membership functions are shown
in Fig. 19 and the control rules and weights are presented in the
Table 9.
based on speed limits
The optimised fuzzy gear shifting control presented in this paper
solves the issue listed by [10], for an AMT control based on speed
limits only, presented in Table 10, in which it is possible to observe
that the minimisation of engine emissions was associated with a
fuel consumption increase, to ensure a quick engine warm-up that
improves the catalyst efficiency. However, the solutions presented
by [10] are based on speed limits that remain constant during the
whole cycle, disregarding the catalyst efficiency. Therefore, this
constraint implies in keeping the engine running at high fuel
consumption regime, even after reaching temperature stabilisation.
On the other hand, the fuzzy control considers the engine
temperature as an input, allowing the AMT to change the shifting
strategy according to the catalyst efficiency, avoiding unnecessarily
fuel consumption after reaching the engine regime temperature.
This matter can be clearly observed comparing the results for the
minimum emissions (min f 2) solutions for the Fuzzy (Table 4) and

IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669 2667
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 9 Best compromised consumption fuzzy control rules
and weights
Engine temperature
Engine Traction Cold Heating Hot
speed torque Output-weight [FR(n) − RW(n)]
low low down-0.79 keep-0.33 keep-0.34
normal down-0.76 down-0.85 down-0.49
high keep-0.77 down-0.88 keep-0.51
normal low keep-0.88 down-0.30 keep-0.26
normal keep-0.06 down-0.29 up-0.22
high down-0.33 keep-0.18 down-0.46
high low up-0.84 down-0.59 keep-0.19
normal keep-0.84 up-0.76 up-0.02
high up-0.21 up-0.65 up-0.56

Fig. 18 Vehicle behaviour using the best-compromised solution

Table 10 Optimum gear shifting strategies based on speed
limits [10]
Results Solutions
min f 1 min f 2 min f 3 max Ft
FC [l] 1.22 1.32 1.49 1.33
EF 1.31 0.70 2.95 0.73
1−R 0.00040 0.00017 0.00007 0.00014
distance, km 17.67 17.72 17.75 17.73
NOx, g/km 0.185 0.158 0.231 0.164
CO, g/km 1.491 1.547 1.680 1.543
HC, g/km 0.263 0.254 0.273 0.253
Ft 2.73 3.35 2.00 3.38

technique, that changes the fuzzy membership functions,

Fig. 19 Membership functions of the best-compromised solution
(a) Engine speed input, (b) Required traction torque input, (c) Engine temperature
input, (d) AMT control output
Speed (Table 10) controls. It is possible to conclude that the
optimised min f 2 and max Ft solutions of the fuzzy controlled
AMT results are closer to the fuel economy strategy (min f 1), with
only 6.31 and 5.41% fuel consumption increase respectively,
against the increase of 8.18 and 9.02% presented by the speed
controlled AMT.
In other words, the best compromised and the low emissions
solutions boost the engine warm-up in the start-up postponing the
upshifts that generates some fuel consumption increase. These
solutions also gradually change the gear shifting strategy to provide
fuel savings as the engine reaches the regime temperature,
anticipating the upshifts to run the engine at high torque and low
speed aiming at the improvement of the combustion efficiency as
the fuel economy solution, but performing these upshifts in more
appropriate conditions to avoid performance losses.
4 Conclusion
This paper presents a multi-objective optimisation for an AMT
fuzzy control, to improve the vehicle acceleration performance,
fuel consumption and engine emissions. The optimisation problem
was formulated based on the Adaptive-Weight Genetic Algorithm
2668
defuzzification method and the control rules with their respective
weights, to find the best trade-off solutions among the optimisation
criteria.
The fuel economy solution was able to fulfil the FTP-75 cycle
saving 24.49% fuel. However, this strategy does not decrease the
engine warm-up period, that consequently extends the time when
the catalyst operates with low efficiency, increasing the emissions.
The many consecutive upshifts that allow the engine to run in a
better efficiency region (saving fuel) also result in acceleration
performance losses due to the several torque supply interruptions.
The best performance solution is the one that better reproduces
the FTP-75 target speed profile, by postponing the upshifts,
avoiding the clutch decoupling and running the engine in situations
where the performance can be limited by the ICE output power.
Therefore, this strategy runs the engine at low torque and high
speed, that represent the worst efficiency regions of the fuel
consumption and emissions maps, that result in 11.56% fuel
consumption and 53.19% NOx emission increase. On the other
hand, this strategy provides a quick warm-up in the cold start phase
of the cycle, resulting in 12.02% CO and 6.09% HC emissions
decrease as compared to the standard gear shifting strategy.
The low emission solution presents an intermediary behaviour
between the fuel economy and the best performance solutions. In
the cold start phase, this strategy postpones the upshifts to boost
the engine warm-up, improving the catalyst efficiency, that
decreases the tailpipe emissions, but this regime implies in fuel
consumption increase as well, and therefore, this AMT solution
changes the strategy to save fuel once the engine reaches the
stabilised temperature. As compared to the standard solution, the
minimum emissions strategy presents 20.41% fuel saving and
6.09% HC, 18.30% NOx and 26.90% CO emission decrease.
The best-compromised solution presents the best trade-off
among fuel consumption, performance and tailpipe emissions,
resulting in 19.72% fuel saving associated with 12.90% HC,
17.02% NOx and 29.20% CO emissions decrease as compared to
the standard solution. This solution presents a gear shifting strategy
close to the low emission solution, but the best-compromised
strategy performs the gear shifts in more favourable conditions
IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

(lower traction torque demand) improving the vehicle acceleration
performance.
Finally, it is concluded that the appropriate gear shifting control
for AMT results in significant improvement in the vehicle
acceleration performance, fuel consumption and engine emissions.
The addition of the data about the engine temperature (that affects
the catalyst efficiency) in the control enables the vehicle to change
the gear shifting strategy after the engine reaches the stabilised
temperature, minimising the emissions in the cold start phase of the
cycle, and saving fuel in the remaining stretches of the FTP-75
speed profile. However, it is important to highlight that the results
obtained in this study were optimised for a single driving cycle.
Therefore, the behaviour of these fuzzy AMT controllers, when
submitted to different driving scenarios, must be evaluated in
future work.
5 Acknowledgments
This work was conducted with scholarships and financial support
of the Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of
Graduate Education (CAPES), National Council for Scientific and
Technological Development (CNPq), State of São Paulo Research
Foundation (FAPESP) and the University of Campinas
(UNICAMP).
6 References
[1] Jia, S., Yan, G., Shen, A.: ‘Traffic and emissions impact of the combination
scenarios of air pollution charging fee and subsidy’, J. Cleaner Prod., Part 1,
2018, 197, pp. 678–689
[2] Habich-Sobiegalla, S., Kostka, G., Anzinger, N.: ‘Electric vehicle purchase
intentions of chinese, russian and brazilian citizens: an international
comparative study’, J. Clean Prod., 2018, 205, pp. 188–200
[3] Van Fan, Y., Perry, S., Klemeš, J.J., et al.: ‘A review on air emissions
assessment: transportation’, J. Clean Prod., 2018, 194, pp. 673–684
[4] Matulić, N., Radica, G., Nižetić, S.: ‘Thermodynamic analysis of active
modular internal combustion engine concept: targeting efficiency increase and
carbon dioxide emissions reduction of gasoline engines’, Int. J. Energy Res.,
2018, 42, (9), pp. 3017–3029
[5] Yin, H., Liu, Z.: ‘Fuel–air ratio control for a spark ignition engine using gain-
scheduled delay-dependent approach’, IET Control Theory Applic., 2015, 9,
(12), pp. 1810–1820
[6] Zapata, C., Nieuwenhuis, P.: ‘Exploring innovation in the automotive
industry: new technologies for cleaner cars’, J. Clean Prod., 2010, 18, (1), pp.
14–20
[7] Zhang, L., Zhang, X., Han, Z., et al.: ‘A novel multi-parameter coordinated
shift control strategy for an automated manual transmission based on fuzzy
inference’, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D, J. Automob. Eng., 2017, 231, (5), pp.
684–699
[8] Oglieve, C.J., Mohammadpour, M., Rahnejat, H.: ‘Optimisation of the vehicle
transmission and the gear-shifting strategy for the minimum fuel consumption
and the minimum nitrogen oxide emissions’, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. D, J.
Automob. Eng., 2017, 231, (7), pp. 883–899
[9] Kan, Z., Tang, L., Kwan, M.P., et al.: ‘Fine-grained analysis on fuel-
consumption and emission from vehicles trace’, J. Clean Prod., 2018, 203,
pp. 340–352
IET Control Theory Appl., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 16, pp. 2658-2669
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
17518652, 2019, 16, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-cta.2018.6272 by Universidade Federal Da Paraiba, Wiley Online Library on [02/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
[10] Eckert, J.J., Santiciolli, F.M., Bertoti, E., et al.: ‘Gear shifting multi-objective
optimization to improve vehicle performance, fuel consumption, and engine
emissions’, Mech. Based Des. Struct. Mach., 2018, 46, (2), pp. 238–253
[11] Eckert, J.J., Silva, L.C.d.A.e., Costa, E.d.S., et al.: ‘Optimization of electric
propulsion system for a hybridized vehicle’, Mech. Based Des. Struct. Mach.,
2019, 47, (2), pp. 175–200
[12] Zhe, L., Xiaohui, L., Qifang, L., et al.: ‘Optimization of dual clutch
transmission shift schedule based on fuzzy algorithm’. 2017 32nd Youth
Academic Annual Conf. of Chinese Association of Automation (YAC), Hefei,
China, 2017, pp. 1277–1282
[13] General Motors: ‘Owner manual Chevrolet Celta 2013’, (Technical report,
Brazil, 2013)
[14] Krithika, V., Subramani, C.: ‘A comprehensive review on choice of hybrid
vehicles and power converters, control strategies for hybrid electric vehicles’,
Int. J. Energy Res., 2018, 42, (5), pp. 1789–1812
[15] Zhang, H., Bien, Z.: ‘Adaptive fuzzy control of MIMO nonlinear systems’,
Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2000, 115, (2), pp. 191–204
[16] Guo, H., Chen, H., Cao, D., et al.: ‘Design of a reduced-order non-linear
observer for vehicle velocities estimation’, IET Control Theory Applic., 2013,
7, (17), pp. 2056–2068
[17] Yang, J., Na, J., Guo, Y., et al.: ‘Adaptive estimation of road gradient and
vehicle parameters for vehicular systems’, IET Control Theory Applic., 2015,
9, (6), pp. 935–943
[18] Chiou, Y.C., Lan, L.W.: ‘Genetic fuzzy logic controller: an iterative evolution
algorithm with new encoding method’, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2005, 152, (3), pp.
617–635
[19] Eckert, J.J., Silva, L.C.A., Santiciolli, F.M., et al.: ‘Energy storage and control
optimization for an electric vehicle’, Int. J. Energy Res., 2018, 44, (11), pp.
3506–3523
[20] Gillespie, T.D.: ‘Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics’ (Society of Automotive
Engineers - SAE, Warrendale, 1992)
[21] Abu-Mallouh, M., Surgenor, B., Denman, B., Peppley, B.: ‘Analysis and
validation of a powertrain system analysis toolkit model of a fuel cell hybrid
rickshaw’, Int. J. Energy Res., 2011, 35, (15), pp. 1389–1398
[22] NBR6601. ‘Light road motor vehicles – determination of hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxides and particulate matter in
the exhaust gas’. ABNT, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2012
[23] Barlow, T.J., Latham, S., McCrae, I., et al.: ‘A reference book of driving
cycles for use in the measurement of road vehicle emissions’ (Transportation
Research Laboratory (TRL), Wokingham, Berkshire, UK, 2009)
[24] Giakoumis, E.G.: ‘Driving and engine cycles’ (Springer, 2017)
[25] Reimpell, J., Stoll, H., Betzler, J.: ‘The automotive chassis: engineering
principles’ (Butterworth-Heinemann, Woburn, 2001)
[26] Genta, G., Morello, L.: ‘The automotive chassis’, vol. 1 (Springer, Dordrecht,
2009)
[27] Eckert, J.J., Corrêa, F.C., Santiciolli, F.M., et al.: ‘Vehicle gear shifting
strategy optimization with respect to performance and fuel consumption’,
Mech. Based Des. Struct. Mach., 2016, 44, (1-2), pp. 123–136
[28] Aaron, B., Haraldsson, K., Hendricks, T., et al.: ‘Advisor: a systems analysis
tool for advanced vehicle modeling’ (National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Denver, 2013)
[29] Gen, M., Cheng, R., Lin, L.: ‘Network models and optimization:
multiobjective genetic algorithm approach’ (Springer Science & Business
Media, London, 2008)
[30] Eckert, J.J., Santiciolli, F.M., Silva, L.C., et al.: ‘Co-simulation to evaluate
acceleration performance and fuel consumption of hybrid vehicles’, J. Braz.
Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng., 2017, 39, (1), pp. 53–66
2669