PHEV

Control Strategy

Project ID # vssp_18_rousseau

2009 DOE Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies

Annual Merit Review
May 19, 2009
Dominik Karbowski, Aymeric Rousseau,
Phil Sharer
Argonne National Laboratory
Sponsored by Lee Slezak

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

„ Understand impact of different control strategy philosophies

on fuel efficiency and component operating conditions.
„ Analyze the most appropriate set of control parameter to
maximize fuel efficiency while maintaining acceptable drive
quality (e.g., engine ON/OFF) and maximizing battery life
(e.g., low Irms).
„ Evaluate fuel efficiency obtained with different control
strategies over Real World Driving Cycles (RWDC’s) and
compare to the J1711 procedure.

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

Real World Automated Control Strategy

Drive Cycles Sizing Analysis

Vehicle Assumptions

Motor Power for Cycle

Battery Power

Engine Power

Battery Energy
No
Convergence

>110 Trips Yes

One day in Midsize Vehicle

Kansas City

Only Hot Conditions Assumed, no Grade! 5

 Approach - Control Strategies Considered
Load Following Engine Power

4kWh Optimal Engine Power

Each tuned
Differential Engine Power
Power for 10, 20, 30,
40 & 50 miles
Split Load Following Engine Power
Charge
Depleting
(CD) range on
8kWh Optimal Engine Power the UDDS

Study Differential Engine Power

Thermostat
12kWh Load Following Engine Power
Series
Thermostat
16kWh Load Following Engine Power

All these options were simulated on the RWDCs

(source EPA 2005 Kansas City Cycles – 110 trips)
6
Differential Engine Power Strategy
„ The engine is turned on at a certain power threshold. It then
provides the difference between the wheel power demand and the
power threshold.

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]

depending on control alone for

Series 16kWh
the 8kWh Split!
150

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

0.01 Controls have similar

Density [-]

operation for low wheel

0.008 power requirements
0.006

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 [-]

0.2 Performs best regarding

# of engine starts
0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of starts per distance [#starts/mile]

4kWh Split Preliminary results

14
 Best Control Selected for Each Configuration Based on
Criteria of Fuel Consumption & Number of Engine Start
Mean Values
250
Conventional
Split 4kWh
200 Split 8kWh
electrical consumption [Wh/km]

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

„ Expand study to other Real World Drive Cycles

(RWDC) – Source INL
„ Develop and test control strategies with trip recognition
„ Implement controls on hardware (if possible)
„ Understand differences with J1711 fuel efficiency
results

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