Int. J. Signal and Imaging Systems Engineering, Vol. 1, No.

1, 2011

1

The Design and Development of Multivariable Controls with the Application for Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles Sajjad Fekri∗ and Francis Assadian
Automotive Mechatronics Centre, Department of Automotive Engineering School of Engineering, University of Cranfield Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1234 754 657, Fax: +44 (0)1234 750 425 Email: {s.fekriasl,f.assadian}@cranfield.ac.uk ∗ Corresponding author.
Abstract: In this paper, we present and discuss the design and development of robust multivariable feedback control in automotive applications with an emphasis on a nontrivial application of Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Energy Management. Most of the existing energy management approaches are not model-based dynamic systems and/or do not address the concepts of robust stability and performance. By considering a complete multi-input multi-output (MIMO) dynamics of the HEV model subject to uncertain parameters and dynamics, it is demonstrated that the two subsystems of the HEV dynamics with strong interactions (ie internal combustion engine and integrated DC motor/generator) are effectively controlled over a defined drive cycle. The employed robust feedback control design provides guaranteed stability- and performancerobustness for the HEV model plant under investigation and is shown to yield satisfactory performance subject to parametric uncertainties (arising due to combustion lag, rotational moment of inertia and damping), unmodeled complex-valued uncertainty (due to fueling delay) and unmeasurable exogenous plant disturbance (due to vehicle load). Simulation results verify that the robust multivariable control synthesis could significantly attack a wide range of challenging automotive applications with regards to improving their practical aspects including emission standards, fuel consumption and calibration cost and time. Keywords: robust feedback control; multivariable control systems; hybrid electric vehicle; energy management; fuel efficiency; diesel engine modeling;uncertain systems. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Fekri, S. and Assadian, F. (2011) ‘The Design and Development of Multivariable Controls with the Application for Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles’, Int. J. Vehicle Design, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.1111– 1111. Biographical notes: Dr. Sajjad Fekri received a BSc degree in Electrical Engineering in 1995 and a MSc degree in Control Engineering in 1997 both from University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran, and a PhD in EECS from Instituto Superior Tecnico (IST), Lisbon, Portugal in 2005. His PhD thesis, under supervision of Prof. Michael Athans (Professor Emeritus MIT, USA), pioneered a novel methodology for the synthesis of Robust Adaptive Control via an integration of robust µ synthesis and probabilistic hypotheses testing. In 2006 he joined the Department of Engineering, University of Leicester as Research Associate where he conducted research in collaboration with BAE SYSTEMS and managed research projects within the area of advanced control systems design for aeronautical systems with an emphasis on unmanned air vehicles. In 2010 he joined Automotive Mechatronics Centre, Cranfield University as a Lecturer/Research Fellow. His current research focus is on synthesis and applications of robust multivariable control systems, optimisation, estimation and Automotive Mechatronics. Professor Francis Assadian received his BSc in Mechanical Engineering from Oklahoma State University in 1982; MSc in Electrical Engineering from California State University, Sacramento in 1992, and PhD in Mechanical Engineering with emphasis in System Modelling and Control System Design from University of California Davis in 1997. Prof. Assadian is a registered Professional Engineer in California. He has worked in Honeywell and ABB Impell companies (USA) in the energy conservation field for nearly 15 years. He joined Peugeot-Citroen research centre (France) as a senior research engineer and then Ford Research Lab (Germany) as a control system technical expert. In 2004, Francis joined Jaguar-Land Rover as a technical expert on assignment from Ford for the development of active limited differential currently in production on Jaguar XFR and XKR. He was responsible for establishing and managing the Hybrid Powertrain Control and Simulation

This lookup tables provides a quasi-static control law which is directly employed for on-line implementation in vehicle. constraints. The first player (drive cycle) wishes to maximize the performance index which reflects the optimisation objectives. the main drawbacks of the game-theoretic approach are the lack of robustness. If only the present state of the vehicle is considered. they may not lead to the feasible casual solutions. 9]. 8. say e. 12]. a significant amount of research has been devoted to the field of energy management for full Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) and Electric Vehicles(EV) [3]. He is currently the Head of the Department of Automotive Engineering and the Director of the Automotive Mechatronics Centre. 1 Introduction Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) have been received with great enthusiasm and attention in recent years [1]. In this approach. effect of timevarying parameters (due to drive cycle) is represented by the actions of the first player while the effect of operating strategy (energy management) is modeled by the actions of the second player. complexity of hybrid powertrain systems have been increased to meet end-user demands and to provide enhancements to fuel efficiency as well as meeting new emission standards [2] which accordingly require more complex (advanced) control system designs to achieve satisfactory performance for the hybrid powertrain. On the other hand. parametric uncertainties and/or unmeasurable exogenous disturbances. a function of weighted fuel economy and driveability variables integrated with a performance index. His areas of interest are Automotive Mechatronics. it cannot be utilised in a wide variety of applications whose dynamics. Hybrid Powertrain Control and Advanced Control Systems for automotive applications. 6] where the optimisation objective is. quadratic programming and dynamic programming [7. a number of heuristics techniques. In the first approach. optimisation of the operating points of the each . While the main objective of hybrid electric vehicles is to reduce Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ) emissions with an optimised fuel consumption. Among these energy management strategies. and the fact that due to there being a quasi-static method it cannot address the vehicle deriveability requirements. similar to the stochastic optimisation approach. There are a number of energy management methods in the literature of hybrid electric vehicles [4]. to obtain a desired closed-loop system response. while the second player aims to minimize this performance index. using Rule-based or Fuzzy logic. and ”sufficiently short” time-horizons [13]. in a heuristic manner. However. He has joined the automotive engineering department at Cranfield in September of 2009 where he established the Automotive Mechatronics Centre. have claimed to offer some improvements in the HEV energy efficiency [5. Two new HEV energy management approaches have been recently introduced in the literature. instead of one specific driving cycle a set of driving cycles are considered for calculating an optimal control law resulting in the stochastic optimisation approach [10]. Although this method has potential to perform well for systems with fewer states. to minimise emission constraints and fuel consumption. inputs. In other words. He has published over 50 conference and journal papers and has two patents and three invention disclosures.g. an entire control law is computed offline. A solution to this approach is calculated off-line and stored in a state-dependent lookup table.g.g. Assadian Group at Jaguar Land Rover.2 S. Any solution to this approach is calculated off-line and stored in a state-dependent lookup table. such heuristics based energy management approaches suffer from the fact that they guarantee neither an optimal result in real vehicle operational conditions nor a robust performance if system parameters deviate from their nominal operating points. Similar to aforementioned methods. Similar approach in this course employs Explicit Model Predictive Control [11. say e. cost function and/or constraints are timevarying due to e. other strategies have emerged that are based on optimisation techniques to search for sub-optimal solutions using programming concepts such as linear programming. any lookup-table-based optimisation approach may end up with severe difficulties in covering a real-world driving situation with a set of individual driving cycles. The lookup table provides a quasi-static control law which is directly applicable to the on-line vehicle implementation. Moreover. whilst the controller will be implemented online based on the lookup table. Fekri and F. In this approach. the required burdensome calculations integrated with these approaches have imposed a high demand on practical computational resources which prevent from being implemented on-line in a straightforward manner. since they assume that the future driving cycle is entirely known. Consequently. Nonetheless. A recent approach has endeavored to decouple the optimal solution from a driving cycle in a game-theoretic (GT) framework [14].

A weighting factor is typically included to prevent a drift in the battery from its nominal energy level and also to guarantee a charge sustaining solution. Two fundamental drawbacks of aforementioned strategies are firstly their consideration of driveability being an afterthought and secondly the driveability issue is deemed in an ad-hoc fashion as these approaches are not model-based dynamic. have dealt with multivariable hybrid systems as decoupled single-input single-output (SISO) loops and.g. Thus. however. maximize fuel economy and sustain a reasonably responsive car (i. there is a vital need of model-based dynamic controllers with an increased processing speed. to tackle a wide range of applications in the automotive control system designs. It should be self-evident that. for the real-time application of HEV energy management. some methods define an optimisation criterion to minimise the vehicle fuel consumption and reduce exhaust emissions [10]. This term includes the corresponding fuel use for the energy exchange with the battery in the optimisation criterion [16]. Section 6 will present some of our conclusions. a number of inherent hardware constraints and limitations integrated with the 3 vehicle electronic control unit (ECU). using its potential capability. and verifying hybrid dynamical models and also for designing hybrid model predictive controllers. such as processing speed and memory. In Section 4. Currently applicable techniques. This approach has been considered in the past. The main shortcoming of model predictive control methods is that they can only be used in applications with ”sufficiently slow” dynamics [13]. Simulation results will be demonstrated in Section 5. MPC is currently applied off-line to generate the required maps and then these maps are used on-line [10]. Hybrid modeling tools have been recently developed to analyse and optimise a number of classes of hybrid systems. or lack of proper estimation of the vehicle load torque (plant disturbance). among other objectives. For this reason the standard MPC algorithms have been retained away from modern production vehicles. Towards a practical model-based dynamic controller approach. have made on-line implementations of predictive control approaches almost impossible. 2 Hybrid Electric Vehicles Modern day automotive engineers must. Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) have been introduced which typically combine two different sources . By utilising this proposed design. and hence are not suitable for many practical applications including HEV energy management problem..Multivariable Controls for Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles component can still be beneficial. However. we will overview the literature of the hybrid electric vehicles. Therefore. We strongly believe that the results of this work could make automotive engineers motivated to continue the design and development of robust multivariable control design and. there are a number of model-based energy management methods such as Model Predictive Controls (MPC). simulation. the robust controller will be integrated into a HEV system as the ”torque manager”. we provide in detail the mathematical description of the simplified dynamical model of the hybrid diesel electric vehicle (parallel type) along with analysing the open-loop dynamics. e. have not addressed the MIMO ”directional properties” quantified by the singular value decomposition (SVD). This paper is organized as follows. Towards this end. one is capable to pose a quantified robustness analysis in the presence of uncertainties due to. We shall highlight some of the aspects of the multivariable robust control design by representing typical simulation results.. we shall overview some of the theoretical and practical aspects of the robust multivariable control for a practical application of hybrid electric vehicle energy management with significance of addressing dynamic vehicle driveability. and robust to uncertainties. In addition. “directionality” issues predominate and we must use singular value plots to understand the dynamic properties in the frequency domain. utilise quasi-static models which are not sufficient to address driveability requirements [14]. A recently developed package for the hybrid MPC design is referred to as Hybrid and Multi-Parametric Toolboxes [21] which is based on the traditional model predictive control optimisation alternatives using generic optimisers. HYbrid Systems Description Language (HYSDEL) [18]. e. transfer function matrices describe all relevant dynamic systems.g. Among these modeling tools developed to represent the hybrid systems. thus. and Piecewise Affine (PWA) models [19.e. In Section 3. generation and utilisation of maps defeat the original purpose of designing a dynamic compensator which maintains driveability. Hybrid Toolbox for Matlab [20] is developed for modeling. for the use of practical hybrid electric vehicle energy management application. in any MIMO case. In Section 2. we discuss briefly the characteristics of the robust multivariable control system design. Almost all of these hybrid tools. An alternative approach is to extend the objective function with a fuel equivalent term. but it is still remained an arduous task to select a weighting factor that is mathematically sound [15]. In fact. to name but a few. The proposed control design. In a number of applications. which makes up the main part of the energy management solution. Towards this end. 9]. we shall refer to Mixed Logical Dynamical (MLD) [17]. such as game-theoretic based optimisation. is derived based on the dynamic models of the plant and hence driveability requirements are taken into consideration as part of the controller design. After the design of the robust multivariable controller. to replace the existing ”non-dynamic” and/or ”non-robust” energy management design approaches. In this paper. maintain driveability) while still meeting increasingly stringent emission constraints mandated by the government. a change in the dynamics of the plant.

[34.4 S. the resulting compensator can be arbitrarily conservative [33]. The vehicle energy management development is a challenging practical control problem for which a significant amount of research has been devoted in regard to the full HEVs and Electric Vehicles (EVs) in the last decade [26]. Also. The greater the parametric uncertainty. • It is essential to meet end-user demands for increasingly complex new vehicles towards improving vehicle performance and driveability [29]. 36. In summary. of power. It is significantly important to quantify the performance tradeoff of the reference tracking problem. The latter term. In fact. Also. e. Hence. while still continuing to reduce costs and meeting new emission standards. as well as the characteristics of unmeasurable exogenous plant disturbances and sensor noises. the purpose of this paper is to highlight importance for analysis and concrete results related to the performance tradeoffs that are always present in MIMO feedback designs with the guaranteed stabilityand performance-robustness. mainly for optimising fuel efficiency and reducing CO2 and greenhouse gases (GHG) [22]. engine downsizing and utilising the electric motor/motors to make up for the lost torque. Hence. the ICE can be switched off as well as during vehicle stop for avoiding engine idling. Assadian • There is a continuous increase in the gap between the theoretical control advancements and the practical control strategies being applied to the existing production vehicles. The concept of sharing the requested power between the internal combustion engine and electric motor for traction during vehicle operation is referred to as ”vehicle supervisory control” or ”vehicle energy management” [24]. There are other benefits offered by hybrid electric vehicles in general. For a more indepth discussion the reader is referred to e. 28] and other references therein. This gap is due to a number of missed opportunities in addressing fundamental functionalities. only a summary is provided here. hybrid propulsion systems are potentially capable of improving fuel efficiency for a number of reasons: they are able to recover some portion of vehicle kinetic energy during braking and use this energy for charging the battery and hence. that is. when required. the traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) with one (or more) electric motors. Compared to the vehicles with conventional ICE. the robust mixed-µ compensator design process detunes an optimal H∞ compensator.g. the impact of advanced control design for the application of the hybrid vehicle powertrain systems has become significantly important [38]. e. emissions. we must take into account both unmodeled dynamics and uncertain real parameters. Refs. tested and implemented in the production hybrid vehicles. driveability. since we deal with a MIMO design. It turns out that the internal combustion engine of the hybrid electric vehicle can be potentially designed with a smaller size and weight which results in a superior fuel efficiency and reduced emissions [23]. there are currently extensive academic and industrial research interests ongoing in the area of hybrid electric vehicles as these vehicles are expected to make considerable contributions to the environmentally conscious requirements in the vehicle production sector in the future – see [27. to hedge for the worst uncertain real parameters and the inevitable unmodeled dynamics. unification of control architecture and integration of the Automotive Mechatronics units on board vehicle. With regards to hybrid electric vehicles. the following key engineering design issues of multivariable feedback . and of the resulting robust feedback control system.and performancerobustness with respect to the explicit performance specifications posed by the control system designer [30]. using the so-called D − K iteration. must possess guarantees of both stability. 3 Multivariable feedback control design All linear time-invariant (LTI) models of real dynamic systems are subject to uncertainty. fuel economy. when real parameter uncertainty is present in the system. the smaller the guaranteed performance. The robust complex µ -synthesis. employed throughout this paper. Fekri and F. designed for the nominal generalised plant. there are tremendous mandates on Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to deliver fuel-efficient and less-polluting vehicles at lower costs. These are some representative advantages of the hybrid vehicles compared to those of conventional vehicles. here are the facts and regulations which must be taken into consideration by automotive engineers: • Due to the ever increasing stringent regulations on fuel consumption and emissions. 37]. utilise the electric motor at a later point in time. • The robust MIMO control system design seem promising advanced tools to bridge this gap should they could be developed.g. in its present form and as presently is implemented in current numerical Matlab software package [31. The theoretical foundation for the mixed-µ analysis and synthesis is too copious for a comprehensive review in the framework of this paper. 32] has substantial disadvantages. ‘directional properties’ quantified by the singular value decomposition (SVD) are important. if the torque request (demanded by driver) is below a threshold torque. some more technical details with regards to this research field are provided in [38]. Moreover. To tackle such a challenging problem. In particular. The design of a multiinput multi-output (MIMO) dynamic compensator.g. which illustrate the strong interactions of the subsystems. 35. For each LTI model. is particularly referred to as a control allocation for delivering the required wheel torque to maximize the average fuel economy and sustain the battery state of charge (SoC) within a desired charging range [25].

. The complex-µ synthesis procedure as an efficient robust design tool. . • Controllers which are designed based on the unstructured H∞ or even robust D-K iteration (complex µ ) [39]. the gearbox is shown in Figure 1 but no gear setting was considered in our simplified HEV demonstration. These can lead to some unexpected behavior [41]. Likewise. 4 Diesel HEV model In Section 2. Again. we used a variety of initial conditions in order to avoid finding a local minimum. Diesel ICE Clutch MIMO Robust Controller CIMG Gear Setpoint Torque Commands (high-level static optimisation) Figure 1 Schematic structure of a parallel 4 × 4 Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV). The hybrid electric vehicle structure shown in Figure 1 is equipped with a turbocharged diesel engine and a crankshaft integrated motor/generator (CIMG) which is directly mounted on the engine crankshaft. The mixed-µ synthesis problem 5 extends the above procedure to the mixed real/complex uncertainties case. in our studies. • In robust MIMO feedback designs with fixed uncertainty for the real parameters. which is (optimally) robust to structured mixed uncertainty is very difficult. A representative configuration of an advanced 4 × 4 parallel hybrid electric vehicle configuration is shown in Figure 1. by exploiting some new analysis tools recently developed for the mixed-µ upper bound [35]. As our intention in this study is to investigate the ”full-hybrid” mode. these can be analyzed and evaluated by the SVD methodology. for example. we design a two-input two-output (TITO) control system for the application of energy management of an uncertain hybrid electric vehicle and demonstrate the very important tradeoffs between performance and uncertainty.e. This is due to the fact that our empirical diesel engine model is derived with engine speed range of ω = [1200. with recent advances on robust multivariable control design using robust µ synthesis. [42]). however. • All unmodeled dynamics must be bounded by their maximum singular values and properly introduced in the robust mixed-µ synthesis. G − K optimization problem is not convex. for the first time. G − K iteration [40].Multivariable Controls for Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles control system for the HEV energy management must be taken into consideration: • Controllers that are not robust. changes in the level of uncertainty associated with the real parameters can have a significant impact upon the ‘directional properties’ of the closed-loop system. are designed without taking into account the uncertainties. In this section. Because of this non-convexity. since the formulated D. The problem of synthesizing a controller with existing control theory and computational tools. it could be widely adopted in new problems of the automotive industry to be addressed by robust multivariable control design. in some extent. Let us first overview a generic HEV structure prior to describing the structure of the simplified diesel hybrid electric vehicle. performance or both of them. In this paper. these can be analyzed and evaluated by the SVD concepts. for fixed performance weights. we shall assume that the integrated ICE-CIMG clutch is fully engaged and hence our descriptive HEV dynamical model (see §4. has been successfully applied to a broad variety of problems (see. • Examine and determine the actual closed-loop stability regions for different types of ‘legal’ unmodeled dynamics. We shall integrate this tractable uncertain HEV model (subject to real and complex uncertainties). 2000]rpm running at the first gear. could potentially fail in providing stability. Low-level control components such as high voltage electric battery. designerimposed preferences for relative performance associated with different signals will also have a significant impact on the ‘directional properties’ of the closed-loop system. clarify the importance of our work carried out in the field of advanced energy management for the HEV systems. • In robust MIMO feedback designs.3) excludes a clutch dynamics as it is shown in Figure 1. we shall investigate how to model a simplified hybrid electric vehicle by replacing the sophisticated nonlinear dynamic of the diesel internal combustion engine. The CIMG is used for starting and assisting the engine in motoring-mode. We have employed the robust µ software [32] which fully implements the D. Of course. i. G − K iteration leading to the best possible robust compensator. are very conservative and yield inferior setpoint tracking performance compared with the compensators designed by the robust mixed-µ software that implements the full D. electric rear axle drive etc are excluded in this high-level energy management configuration. and also for generating electric energy via charging a high-voltage battery (not shown in the figure). we overviewed the literature of the hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) which could.

and for the ease of development of an advanced HEV energy management system. but rather a high-level torque manager model that will generate control efforts based on a given set-point torque commands.1 Simplified diesel engine model In this section. As stated earlier. as functions of diesel engine speed [rpm] and brake torque [Nm]. The simplified diesel engine model can be described as the following state-space equations: 1 dem x ˙1 = −1 (t − τ ) ς x1 + ς TB Tind = x1 TB = Tind − TLoss (2) where x1 is the state associated with the combustion lag dynamics. integrated within the typical HEV dynamics. Our simplified diesel engine model is empirically derived using a turbo-charged diesel engine at speed range of ω = [1200. the dynamics of the engine model includes the average torque responses of both diesel engine and CIMG over all four cylinders. τ [msecs]. 4. the nonlinearities associated with the internal engine processes (i. the severe cross coupling. Table 1 Experimental results of fueling delay. Therefore. Our diesel model also contains a speed-dependant torque loss TLoss arising due to friction torque. namely ω = [1200. high voltage battery management. low level clutch control. air flow). However. 2000]rpm with operational brake torque acting at TB = [50. Generally speaking. control engineers should possess a good comprehension of the physics of the plant under investigation. There are two main reasons to highlight the importance of simplified HEV dynamical models: First. we do not intend to utilise any detailed model of the internal engine processes. low level transmission control. For designing a well balanced feedback control law. For the above reasons. ς [msecs]. the total engine torque loss is well approximated by a linear function of ω modeled as TLoss = mω where m = 0. we will have Tind (t) = 1 T dem (t − τ (ω )) ς (ω )s + 1 B (1) where ς is the speed-dependant time constant due to combustion lag. and electrical distribution including DC-DC converter. τ is the speed-dependant time-delay due dem to fueling course and TB is the mapped fueling input representing the required ICE crankshaft (brake) torque. it is essential to obtain a straightforward and realistic model of the propulsion system to which an efficient control strategy.g. to name just a few. These low-level subsystems include CIMG lowlevel motor control. combustion process. most of the common low-level subsystems. This HEV dynamical model is modeled using two subsystems. The ICE indicated torque Tind is assumed to be mapped from the delayed fueling input proportionally. These results are captured by measuring the step response of the engine to a step change in the engine brake torque. . this model shall be used for the simulation of the overall vehicle motion (at longitudinal direction). our developments towards a simplified hybrid model are based on a high fidelity simulation model of the overall diesel hybrid electric vehicle. The speeddependant fueling delay (τ ) and combustion lag (ς ) are given in Table 1. Furthermore. and the limited output sensor dynamic capabilities all contribute to make this modelling step a most arduous task [43].e. ancillary torque and pumping loss.6 S. For this reason. 100]Nm. One of the challenging aspect of any model based engine control development is the derivation of a simplified yet insightful model. are not considered in the HEV configuration as shown in Figure 1. a diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) and an armature-controller DC electric motor. such as our proposed robust mixed-µ design methodology. we shall present a simplified dynamical model of a turbo-charged diesel engine. and has limited bandwidth due to internal combustion dynamic effects. due to combustion and turbo lag. could be applied. it is not usually possible to obtain a detailed diesel engine data (or model) from the production vehicle manufacturer [44]. Secondly. The mathematical modeling of these two subsystems will be discussed in the remainder of this section. heat distribution. 100]Nm. for the purpose of the studied operating range of engine speed and brake torque. For instance. Recall that this torque management structure could be easily adopted to other engine configurations in a straightforward manner. Assadian ω 1200 1200 1600 1600 2000 2000 TB 50 100 50 100 50 100 τ 100 140 84 96 80 72 ς 144 142 140 137 140 134 It is also worthwhile to emphasise that our design methodology on the development of the HEV energy management is a high-level design strategy. arising e. Fekri and F.12 (ω in [rad/sec]). and combustion lag. In a mathematical representation. the inherent sampling nature of the four cycle internal combustion engine. This simplified model is based upon the nonlinear diesel engine dynamics and the fact that it must capture both the transient and steady-state dominant modes of the diesel engine during operational conditions. the frequency range of the engine system. obtaining a precise mathematical model of a HEV powertrain is a very challenging task particularly due to multi-energetic nature and switching dynamics of a hybrid powertrain. 2000]rpm and TB = [50. which are the quantities of interest. Such a total torque loss is typically a nonlinear function of the engine speed and could be represented by table mapping.

and the effective damping  (5) where x2 and x3 are the states associated with the armature current (Ia ). vemf is the back emf voltage. three uncertain real parameters associated with the diesel engine combustion lag ς . as the system is in hybrid mode. J is the effective combined moment of rotational inertia (including CIMG rotor. the details of estimation approach are not discussed here. the overall state-space equations of the simplified HEV model is represented by  1    −1 0 0 0 ς ς 0 kb  1  x ˙ =  0 −Ra − L x + 0 L u +  0  TL a a 1 km 1 m+b −J (6) 0 0 − J [ J J ] 1 0 −m y= x 0 km 0 where x ∈ R3 is the state of the HEV system obtained dem dem T ( t − τ ) TM ] from Equations (2) and (5). For the sake of simplicity. Furthermore. By omitting the dependance on time-delay for the sake of simplicity. b is the effective joint damping coefficient. respectively. req TM ) where ω is the drivetrain speed. . and La and Ra are inductance and resistance of the armature. TLoss 7 4. we can now build the proposed simplified 3-state HEV model. 4. flywheel. Also. However. it is assumed that the ICE/CIMG clutch is fully engaged and hence the clutch model is excluded from the main HEV dynamics . a simplified but realistic simulation HEV model with a detailed component representation of diesel ICE and DC electric motor (CIMG) will be used as a basis for deriving the HEV model in the subsequent section. the hybrid inertial load J . see [14] for more details.2 Simplified CIMG Model Assuming that the hybrid electric drivetrain includes an armature-controlled CIMG (DC motor).it was previously shown in HEV schematic diagram of Figure 1. A schematic representation of the simplified parallel diesel hybrid electric vehicle model is shown in Figure 2. va is control effort as of armature voltage. Regarding the fact that the engine speed is synchronised with that of the CIMG in the ”full-hybrid” mode. respectively. driveline and wheels) v emf Armature (3) Figure 2 kb Block diagram of the simplified parallel Diesel Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) model. Also. crankshaft. and drivetrain speed (ω ). the lookdem up mapping table of CIMG torque request (TM ) vs dem armature voltage request (va ) is simply assumed to be an unit gain in this model. the rotational dynamics of the hybrid drivetrain (including inertial crankshaft and motor) is given as follows: TBdem e -τ( ω )s ςω ( 1 )s Tind +1 Engine torque loss vs driveline speed mapping Fueling delay Combustion/turbo lag TB TL 1 Js + b ω dem TM dem va Motor torque vs CIMG armature voltage mapping kb La s + Ra TM Rotating load (consisting of flywheel. respectively. in Figure 2 the engine brake torque TB and the CIMG torque TM are estimated torque feedback signals.3 Simplified diesel hybrid electric vehicle model Based on the state-space representation of both the diesel ICE and electric CIMG. given in Equation (2) and Equation (5). From Equations (2) and (5). one could assume that both ICE and CIMG output torque signals are measured with inherent sensor noises to represent the estimation errors. without loss of generality. The mathematical dynamics of the CIMG could be represented as 1 Ia = (v dem − vemf ) La s + Ra a vemf = kb ω TM = km Ia dem where km and kb are torque and back emf constants. crankshaft. u = [TB T and y = [TB TM ] are control signals and HEV torque outputs. as discussed earlier.Multivariable Controls for Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles The diesel dynamic shown in Equation (2) will be used in the overall configuration of the HEV dynamics. CIMG rotor. given by the delay time τ . driveshaft and wheels). Jω ˙ + bω = TB + TM − TL (4) req Recall that the setpoint torque commands (TB and are provided to the controller by a high-level static optimisation algorithm. the gear setting is disregarded at this simplified model. The armature-controlled CIMG model as of Equation (3) along with the rotational dynamics of Equations (4) could be integrated into the following state-space equations: kb 1 dem x ˙2 = L v − R a x2 − L x3 a a a km 1 b+m 1 x ˙ 3 = J x1 + J x2 − J x3 − J TL TM = km x2 In addition. driveline. not discussed in this study (see also Figure 1). respectively. and TL is the vehicle load torque representing the plant disturbance. As shown in Equation 6. the applied voltage va controls the motor torque (TM ) as well as the angular velocity ω of the shaft. Ia is armature current. the plant includes one actuator unmodeled dynamics described by the uncertain value in the fueling control time delay.

• The ICE desired torque (handling quality (HQ)) response from the ICE setpoint torque to the ICE where N specifies the derivative coefficient. sensor noises. The frequency-domain upper bound for the unmodeled time-delay is required for mixed-µ synthesis design and is the magnitude of the transfer function Wun (s) = 2. the superior the torque reference tracking performance. in order to penalize the control actions differently in different frequency regions.15]N/m J ∈ [0. This is used to limit the bandwidth of the closed-loop system.8 S. The transfer function Wun (s) is multiplied by a delta block ∆un (s) ∈ C that satisfies ||∆un (s)||∞ ≤ 1. The greater the performance parameter. the (unmeasured) plant disturbance (vehicle load TL (t) in our case study). The ICE torque control and CIMG torque control actuators have ±100Nm/sec and ±300Nm/sec limits on their deflection rates.0033 so that we allow larger controls in lower frequencies and we penalize for large controls at much higher frequencies. . which determines the pole location of the filter in the derivative action. Our performance specifications include: • Decoupled responses from ICE setpoint torque to the ICE brake torque TB and from the CIMG setpoint torque to the CIMG output torque TM .01  Wact (s) =  (12) 0. they have ±400Nm and ±200Nm limits on their deflection which are considered in designing the frequency-domain control design weights. The diagonal form of Wact (s) used is  0. Fekri and F. Also. outputs and control signals as follows subsequently. which introduces a phase uncertainty in the range of ±180. is modeled by a stationary stochastic process generated by driving a low-pass filter. the following control rate weights are used in the robust control design: [ ] 1 AE = s s [1+ N ] (11) 1 AM = s s 1+ N Figure 3 Block diagram of the fueling time-delay error model. We select a control frequency weight. eM (s). The real uncertain parameters values for our case study are ς ∈ [0. so the pole of the Wun (s) transfer function is set near the maximum timedelay frequency of 15rad/secs – likewise. which is an indefinite dimension block. 0. Aj p are the performance parameters – see Table 2.13. Assadian brake torque TB should match the damped secondorder response HQICE = 100 s2 + 16s + 100 coefficient b.8s + 144 −1 (8) as shown in Figure 3. our design goal is to have the ”true” MIMO HEV respond effectively to the ICE and CIMG setpoint torque requests.25]N m/(Rad. can then be approximated by a high-pass transfer function Wun (s) with a real pole. 1.5.s) (7) In addition to these three real uncertainties. In order to model such a ”pure” ICE fueling time-delay.2(s+100)   s+1000 0 0.1(s+60)  0 s+600   0. The multiplicative error magnitude. denoted by Wact (s).05. there is a time-delay τ in the ICE fueling control channel which represents an unmodeled complex-valued dynamics. by a complexvalued uncertainty. the gain is adjusted until Wun forms a tight upper bound for the magnitude of the eM (s) transfer function.15s s + 15 (9) It is worthwhile to stress that an actual time-delay of τ (ω ) mapped from engine speed and brake torque (see Table 1) will be used in our simulation. To capture the limits on the actuator deflection rates. we shall consider a frequency upperbound to be represented as a multiplicative error eM (s) = e −τ s • The CIMG handling quality response from the CIMG torque request input to the CIMG torque output should match the damped second-order response HQCIM G = s2 144 + 16. Also. To carry out the robust µ design. we must also select frequency-dependent weight matrices upon the disturbances. In order to design the robust feedback controller the following type of performance weight upon the output vector is used: [ 1 ] 1 Ap 0 Wp (s) = (10) s + α 0 A2 p which reflects our performance specification (setpoint tracking) for the frequency range ω ≤ α rad/sec where the vehicle load disturbance TL (t) has most of its power.s2 ) b ∈ [0. The maximum value of the fueling time-delay uncertainty is τ ≤ τmax = 140 msecs. 0. To this end.5]N m/(Rad.

4 Frequency-domain analysis The open-loop singular value decomposition of the uncertain MIMO HEV model from the input u(t) = dem dem T [T L . The plant initial condition x0 ∈ R3 is assumed zero in the simulations.5-1. there is a huge gap between the maximum and the minimum singular values of the worst case uncertain parameters (around 3 dB) which will create significant challenges for control system design. Parameter Sampling time (ts ) Maximum ICE fueling delay (τ ) ICE combustion lag (ς ) Motor armature resistance (Ra ) Motor armature inductance (La ) Motor torque constant (km ) Motor back emf constant (kb ) Effective drivetrain inertia (J ) Effective drivetrain damping (b) Bandwidth design frequency (α) ICE performance parameter (A1 p) CIMG performance parameter (A2 p) Derivative filter coefficient (N ) Value 8 140 [130-150] 1 0. The desired setpoint tracking problem requires that the effects of plant disturbance TL (t) (primarily) and also sensor noise (estimation errors) be minimized. A robust controller based on µ synthesis was designed for this system using the frequency-dependant weighting functions integrated into the generalised plant P (s). TM ] to the output y (t) = [TB . the selected measurement noise can be translated into modeling of the torque estimation errors. 30 20 10 Singular Values (dB) 0 −10 −20 −30 −40 −50 −60 Table 2 10 −2 Physical constants of the HEV model and control system design parameters. and complex-valued unmodeled dynamics δς and ∆un .25 0.25 [0. the uncertainty block ∆ = diag (δJ I2×2 . We do not intend to discuss details of the designed estimators in this paper for the sake of readability.0. there are large variations in the resonant peaks over the frequency range [2. Moreover. Some representative simulation results of HEV energy management case study will be shown in Section 5 to highlight some advances of our proposed MIMO control system design.25] 0. There are also frequency-domain weights on the measurement noise Wn .s/rad kg. The parameters used in the control system design along with other physical constants of the HEV model dynamics are provided in Table 2. we have chosen constant measurement noise of Wn =diag(0. 0. TM ]T are shown in Figure 4 for different values of real uncertainties δJ . as follows: TL (s) = Wd (s) ξ (s) with Wd (s) = α s+α (14) (13) 9 where the frequency range ω ≤ α is where the vehicle load has most of its power.05. In reality. with zero mean and unit intensity. 10 Frequency (rad/sec) 0 10 2 10 4 Figure 4 Singular values decomposition of the open-loop uncertain hybrid electric vehicle dynamic.s rad/sec – – – 4. ∆un ) and the robust TITO controller K (s) to be designed. δb . We have assumed that performance variables (ICE torque and CIMG torque outputs) are measurable. Nonetheless. In either case. Also. δb . this might be infeasible and.5] [0. 5 Simulation results In this section.m2 /s2 Nm. an estimation algorithm is required to estimate the HEV output torques. 20] rad/sec. T B .05.1 rad/sec.05) indicating of %5 error due to the estimation (or measurement noise) on the torque output signals. We shall analyse and evaluate the closed-loop behavior of the HEV energy management system using the robust feedback control design applied to the . δς . even for the simplified LTI HEV system. along with the HEV model uncertainty and performance objectives – see [38] for more details and for the robust control diagram including the generalised HEV model P (s). For the uncertain HEV energy management application an equated LTI discrete-time system of the continuous-time state-space dynamics described in Equation (6) is obtained using a sampling interval ts (see Table 2). without loss of generality. thus. with continuous-time white noise ξ (t). The frequency-dependant design weights of Equations (9)-(14) together with the state-space equations of Equation (6) will be used in designing the robust multivariable feedback control using µ synthesis described in Section 3.01 20 190 50 Unit msecs msecs msecs Ohms Henrys Nm/Amp Volt.3 0.Multivariable Controls for Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles Wd (s). we shall present the results of robust multivariable control design described in Section 3 for the application of the simplified HEV energy management system discussed in Section 4. Note that the worst case uncertainties have most effect over the frequency range ω ≤ 0.

It is worthwhile to point out that as illustrated in Figure 7(a). as illustrated in Figure 5(a). directional properties quantified by the singular value decomposition (SVD) are significantly important. Figure 5 verifies that both the diesel ICE and the DC electric motor could satisfactorily track the requested torque 60 50 40 TB [Nm] 30 20 10 0 0 Treq B TB 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 TLoad 20 18 16 14 12 10 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 (a) Engine Brake Torque.10 S. respectively. the TITO controller is requested to follow the commands for a decreased and increased ICE torques. 2000]rpm. we have in fact violated our empirical HEV modeling assumption in that drivetrain speed is limited to ω = [1200. The vehicle speed shown in Figure 7(b) has been calculated high-fidelity simplified model of the HEV described in Section 4. This fact will make implementation of all sort of H∞ optimisation based algorithms more tractable to be applied in real dynamical applications.vehicle dynamics is not discussed here due to space limitation. Figure 6 shows the vehicle load torque used for the purpose of our simulations. Recall that. Figure 7 shows simulation results in regard to the drivetrain speed and vehicle speed. as discussed earlier. Such future driving conditions in our case study include setpoint torque commands (requested by driver) and vehicle load torque. Assadian setpoints. During this simulation period. We shall assume that the plant disturbance (vehicle load) is unknown while robust controller attempts to minimise its effects on the performance outputs. there is a decreased request for the CIMG torque (from 40 Nm to -10 Nm entering regenerative braking mode) at time t = 10 secs whereas the robust controller has successfully delivered this torque request. which illustrate the strong interactions of the two subsystems. it can be seen that the robust controller could still control the HEV energy management dynamics satisfactorily. Tdem B Tdem M 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 (b) CIMG Torque. Figure 6 Simulation results of vehicle load and actual control efforts. Despite the fact that the HEV energy management is a highly-coupled MIMO dynamical system. We shall emphasis that the robust control system designed. by requesting the above torque commands. However. . It is also worthwhile to emphasis that our energy manager structure assumes that setpoint torque commands are provided by some sort of static optimisation algorithms using a high-level torque management systems. ICE torque loss and control efforts generated by the robust controller . The designed robust controller is then enquired to optimise control efforts so as to track the requested torque references at the HEV model outputs. does not require knowledge about future driving conditions. as depicted in Figure 5(b). since we deal with a MIMO design. 30 20 TCIMG [Nm] 10 0 −10 −20 Treq M TM 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 70 60 50 u [Nm] 40 30 20 10 0 0 (a) Vehicle (load) Torque. Fekri and F. due to there being a dynamical system. Similarly. Figure 6(b) shows the control signals demanded whereas the robust control system fully satisfies the appropriate level of constraints due to hybrid actuators limitations. Figure 5 shows typical simulation results for the period of 20 secs in tracking the HEV requested setpoint torques. Figure 5 Simulation results of the HEV Torque setpoints and outputs based on robust control design. (b) Control signals. the system is in hybrid mode as both ICE and CIMG torques are requested to be delivered from high-level torque management system. As shown in Figure 5. at times t = 5 secs and t = 15 secs . Our simulations have been carried out in Simulink and implemented in discrete-time using a zero-order hold with a sampling time of ts = 8 msecs – see Table 2.

However. pages 3129–3134. In In Proc. Husain. Dec. CRC Press. Warwick. Washington DC. the simulation time required for a single run of 20 secs was approximately 20 times faster than real-time running a Toshiba Portege laptop with an Intel(R) Core(TM) i5 processor. we have utilised the actual speeddependant time-varying parameters. 2003. which are accordingly considered as constant uncertain parameters in our design. IEEE Trans. 11 6 Conclusions The aim of this paper was to present a robust MIMO feedback control design with an application for the energy management of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). Khayyam et al. Figure 7 Simulation results of parallel diesel HEV drivetrain speed and vehicle speed. The singular value decomposition analysis were shown to address directionality so as to understand the dynamic properties in the frequency domain.and performance-robustness tradeoff and are not dynamic model-based approaches – this turns out that the driveability aspect in the existing control designs is an afterthought.J. the proposed robust MIMO feedback control designed for the complete HEV energy management package model (or other complex automotive applications) could potentially be run using low speed control rates. HEV control strategy for realtime optimization of fuel economy and emissions. The proposed robust design architecture could resolve shortcomings of the existing non-robust control design methodologies. in designing the robust MIMO control system we require to utilise an LTI model of the HEV energy management plant hedging on worst case of the ICE speed-dependant parameters. [2] I. [7] M. May 2002. (b) Vehicle Speed. 2009. Energy Management.R. The applicability of existing controllers in the energy management setting. we shall (assume that ς and τ are sufficiently slow. As a result of computational capability.4GHz under Windows 7 Pro platform.D. . 2nd edition. has shown a main drawback of these algorithms as most of them do not address the problems of stability. In In Proc. On Control Systems Technology. 24 22 20 v (mph) 18 16 14 12 10 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 References [1] C. McFarland & Co Inc. Assadian. It is important to recall that we have carried out extensive simulations all leading to very promising results which are not discussed at this paper. Anderson. Ramsbottom and F. Cikanek and K. InTech Publisher. in the simulation. the dynamical robust multivariable control design does not explicitly utilise any knowledge in regard to the future driving cycle. March 2010. 10(3):460–468. Johnson et al. 2500 2000 W (rpm) 1500 1000 500 0 WE WM 0 5 10 Time (sec) 15 20 (a) Drivetrain Speed. Electric and Hybrid Cars: A History.. Fuzzy logic control for parallel hybrid vehicles. Regarding the real-time simulations in Simulink (fixed-step) using a sampling time of ts . May 2002. Dec. 1st edition. Anderson and J. Schouten et al. UK. Bailey. Use of approximate dynamic programming for the control of a mild hybrid. In In Proc. However. Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: Design Fundamentals. The main goal of energy management in hybrid electric vehicles is to reduce the CO2 emissions with an enhanced fuel consumption for a hybrid powertrain control system.Multivariable Controls for Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles using a dynamic model of the vehicle as a function of the drivetrain speed which is not discussed here. [3] H. of WMG Hybrid Conference. USA. University of Warwick. It is also important to mention that fueling delay and combustion lag are functions of engine speed and brake torque – see Table 1. Of the American Control Conf. [5] S.E. however. of the Future Car Congress. chapter Intelligent Energy Management in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. AK. [4] V. Moreover. Regenerative braking system for a hybrid electric vehicle.H. Simulation results illustrated that the robust multivariable control design could be a very promising control system design methodology while it could play a key role in a wide variety of challenging complex automotive applications. 2006. [6] N. April 2000. Towards this end. at 2. Anchorage.

[34] M. Explicit Hybrid Model Predictive Control of the dc-dc Boost Converter. Guzzella. [24] T. June 2008.C. On Vehicular Power and Propulsion. Mechatronic design and control of hybrid electric vehicles. In Proc. [27] B. Design optimisation and optimal control for hybrid vehicles.A. Optimization of powertrain operating policy for feasibility assessment and calibration: Stochastic dynamic programming approach. Balas. [33] G. Assadian. IEEE Trans. Advanced Model Predictive Control. and constraints. France.J. Automatica. UK. Identification. Of the IEEE Int.. 2005.D. In Proceedings of the 17th IFAC World Congress. [16] J. 2008. In In Proc. Robustness in the presence of mixed parametric uncertainty and unmodeled dynamics. Baumann et al. 2007. of the International Conference on Engineering Optimization. 1991. dynamics.M. 2010. [28] S. April 2007. [19] E. Proc. Jan. May 2002. Optimal energy management for mild hybrid operation of vehicles with an integrated starter generator. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. [25] A. µ -Analysis and Synthesis Toolbox of Matlab. Energy analysis of hybrid vehicle powertrains. Doyle. April 2009. Fekri and F. In In Proc. [11] D. In In Proc. In IEEE PESC. Stein and J. In IEEE/ASME Trans. Postlethwaite. Private communication re mixedµ software. A framework for multiparametric programming and control — an overview. [12] A. and Predictive Control: An Application to Hybrid Electric Vehicle Energy Management. pages 1425–1430. 2004. chapter Fast Model Predictive Control and its Application to Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles. In In the 2nd International IEE Conference on Automotive Electronics. pages 58–72. AIAA Journal of Guidance and Control. April 2005. [21] D. Balas et al. Skogestad and I.H. Energy Management for Automotive Power Nets. In SAE World Congress & Exhibition.. [9] G. [17] A.12 S. Sep. Anchorage. Multivariable Feedback Control – Analysis and Design. Hofman and R.G. of the American Control Conf. Sontag. Fuhs. 2006. pages 1 – 5. of IEEE International [22] A. July 2008. [31] G. 1981. IEEE Trans. [10] I. Bemporad. Kessels.M. [29] E. Boyd. Europe 2008. [14] C. Narciso et al. Kolmanovsky et al. Faculteit Electrical Engineering. 2004. EngOpt 2008. Fast model predictive control using online optimization. Automatica. June 2007. pages 60–70. 35:407–427. Detroit. In In Proc. on Automatic Control. Jan. of the SAE World Congress. AK. 1999. June 2011. Rousseau et al. InTech Publisher. Michigan. 2008. PhD thesis. 36(1):25–38. Control of hybrid electric vehicles. Van Druten. Wang and S. Hybrid Vehicles.D. Rio de Janeiro. Symp. Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. IEMC [8] A. Hybrid Toolbox . Sciarretta and L. Evaluating the impact of driveability requirements on the performance of an energy management control architecture for a hybrid electric vehicle. CRC Press. 2003. Assadian Engineering Management Conference. Hybrid-electric Cars and Control Systems: Control strategy of car hybrid system and its experimental confirmation.C. pages 6974–6979. IEE Savoy Place.unisi. De la Pena et al. Control of systems integrating logic.User’s Guide.J. Seoul. on Control Systems Technology. Beccuti et al. Torrisi and A. The Netherlands. 14(1):5–16. [23] G. [15] G. 2004. Oct. The MathWorks Inc. Orlando.K. on Automatic Control. John Wiley. [26] D. Bemporad et al. Springer-Verlag. 1991. of the 12th International Conference on Hybrid Systems Computation and Control (HSCC 2009). chapter Hybrid Modeling. June 2004. Bemporad and M. Korea. Paris. [13] Y. [18] F. Hysdel — a tool for generating computational hybrid models. USA. Ripaccioli et al. IEEE Trans. Brazil. [20] A. http://www. . Hybrid electric vehicle energy management using game theory. 2nd edition. On Mechatronics. [32] G. 26(2):346–358. June 2008. Morary. Beyond singular values and loopshapes. Steinmaurer and L. Florida. March 2000. Robust explicit MPC based on approximate multiparametric convex programming. Apr. 2006. The explicit linear quadratic regulator for constrained systems. Cacciatori et al. Aug. 51:1399–1403. 38:3–20. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 2002. Bemporad. Fan et al.dii. Jan. Nonlinear regulation: The piecewise linear approach. volume 5. User’s Guide. Del Re. [30] S. Cundev. Fekri and F. IEEE Control Systems Magazine. 12(2):235–249.it/hybrid/toolbox. 1st edition. Dextreit et al.

NJ. [40] P. In Proc. PhD thesis. J. on Decision and Control. Athans C. 2001. June 1994. . [36] P. Sawodny. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. NJ. pages 7–12. Silvestre J. Balas and A. Zhou et al. Int. USA. Int. pages 671–687. Controller design with mixed uncertainties. Robust and Optimal Control. of IEEE International Conference on Control Applications (CCA 2008). Young. Fekri and F.and performance-robustness tradeoffs: Mimo mixed-µ vs complex-µ design. [38] S. Young. Doyle. MA.. USA. pages 1251–1256. Packard. Stability. Feb. Kaszynski and O. [42] G. The Structured Singular Value (µ ) Framework.M.M. Young et al. Lewis. [39] K. In Proc. 1996. Zhou and J. Oliveira. M. µ analysis with real parametric uncertainty. CRC Press Inc. Levine. Application of robust multivariable control on energy management of hybrid electric vehicles. The Control Handbook.). of the American Control Conf. 2009. Automotive engine control: A linear quadratic approach. pages 2333–2337. on Vehicular Technology (under review). Englewood Cliffs. 13 [41] M. Modeling and identification of a built-in turbocharged diesel engine using standardized on-board measurement signals. Englewood Cliffs. August 2011.C. B. MD. 1980. [43] J. Prentice-Hall. S. of Robust and Nonlinear Control. [44] M. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Baltimore. USA.S. 1996. Prentice-Hall. Sept. Vasconcelos. of the IEEE Conf. [37] K. 1998. 2008. of Robust and Nonlinear Control. Structured singular value approach for systems with parametric uncertainty. (W. IEEE Trans. 11:653–680. Dept. 1991. ed.J. Fekri and P. Essentials of Robust Control. Assadian.Multivariable Controls for Energy Management of Hybrid Electric Vehicles [35] P. J. In Proc.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.