95 views

Uploaded by Rodrigo Bob

Racing Simulation of a Formula 1 Vehicle With Kinetic Energy Recovery System

- Service Book DD70
- F308manual v03
- Dallara f308 Owners Manual 2013 Aprob
- A Study of Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems
- DRUM PHH
- Chess Engine Tricks
- A Tool for Lap Time Simulation
- eita giovanna
- Racecar Engineering
- Formula1 Race-car Aerodynamics
- Developments of a Method for Lap Time Simulation
- 1 Chassis
- A1GP Car Manual Issue 1 3
- Gp2 User Manual 2008 v1.0
- Race Car Aerodynamics - Joseph Katz - 1st Edition
- Race Seminar
- Lotus Suspension Analysis
- HL7407A
- SAP-PM-Training
- H50D

You are on page 1of 15

SAE TECHNICAL

PAPER SERIES

2008-01-2964

Kinetic Energy Recovery System

Aldo Sorniotti

University of Surrey

Massimiliano Curto

Politecnico di Torino

Concord, North Carolina

December 2-4, 2008

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-0790 Web: www.sae.org

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed

SAE's peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. This process requires a

minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,

without the prior written permission of SAE.

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions

400 Commonwealth Drive

Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA

Email: permissions@sae.org

Tel:

724-772-4028

Fax:

724-776-3036

SAE Customer Service

Tel:

877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)

Tel:

724-776-4970 (outside USA)

Fax:

724-776-0790

Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191

Copyright 2008 SAE International

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE.

The author is solely responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions

will be printed with the paper if it is published in SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication by SAE should send the

manuscript or a 300 word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

2008-01-2964

Kinetic Energy Recovery System

Aldo Sorniotti

University of Surrey

Massimiliano Curto

Politecnico di Torino

ABSTRACT

This paper deals with the development of a Lap Time

Simulator in order to carry out a first approximate

evaluation of the potential benefits related to the

adoption of the Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS).

KERS will be introduced in the 2009 Formula 1 Season.

This system will be able to store energy during braking

and then use it in order to supply an extra acceleration

during traction. Different technologies (e.g. electrical,

hydraulic and mechanical) could be applied in order to

achieve this target. The lap time simulator developed by

the authors permits to investigate the advantages both in

terms of fuel consumption reduction and the

improvement of the lap time.

INTRODUCTION

Starting from 2009 FIA allows the adoption of a Kinetic

Energy Recovery System, characterized by 60 kW of

maximum output power measured at the driven wheels.

The energy released by KERS may not exceed 400 kJ

during a single lap.

According to the new Formula 1 regulations, there is no

particular specification or limitation related to the kind of

technology which could be adopted for the development

of KERS. From a theoretical viewpoint, KERS could be

based on the following technologies:

flywheels;

Electric hybrid technology based on the adoption

of supercapacitors;

hydraulic motor/pump connected to an

accumulator.

simulation, of the new opportunities (in terms of the

overall

vehicle

performance)

offered

by

the

implementation of this system, both in terms of lap time

and overall fuel consumption. In particular, a lap time

simulator has been adopted in order to simulate the

performance of different vehicle layouts and to evaluate

the basic performance improvement related to the new

system (which will be activated by the driver in the most

suitable areas of the tracks a controlled activation is

not permitted).

The basic hypotheses of the adopted simulation software

are discussed. Then the layouts related to the different

options for the development of KERS are briefly

presented. In particular, the lap time simulator presented

in this paper has been developed in the context of a

research activity focused on the comparison between the

electrical layout and the mechanical layout based on the

adoption of a flywheel as energy storage device. The

paper deals with the simulation models which have been

developed during this preliminary analysis. The

simulation results of the paper are related to a vehicle

equipped with a KERS system based on the adoption of

electrical components.

Firstly, Dynamic Programming has been adopted (and

the methodology is explained) for the optimization of

vehicle performance in terms of fuel consumption, for an

established trajectory in terms of vehicle speed. Some

qualitative and quantitative results related to possible fuel

saving strategies are analyzed in detail.

Secondly, a brute force method is presented for lap time

optimization (the limitations due to the adoption of

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

KERS optimal control are derived through basic theory

(energy balance equations applied to simple case

studies) and lap time simulation.

Finally, the lap time simulation software has been further

developed in order to simulate the entire race, including

the pit-stop laps (comprehensive of the braking phase

along the pit lane, the refueling phase and the

subsequent re-acceleration). As the simulator considers

the whole race, a pit-stop strategy optimization algorithm

is provided and discussed. A comparison, in terms of the

overall performance during the race, between the fuel

saving strategies and the lap time optimization strategies

is dealt with in the final section of the article.

The conclusion of the paper deals with the future

developments of the activity, related to the enhancement

of the presented lap time simulator and the possible

opportunities offered by an extended adoption of KERS

(in terms of values of power and energy released per

lap).

The main aim of the developed simulator is to compute

comparative lap times so that the KERS parameters and

control can be optimized. The simulator has been

implemented in MATLAB.

The Lap Time Simulation (LTS) package of the

University of Surrey has been adopted. This software

package includes steady state Lap Time Simulators

characterized by increasing levels of complexity, in terms

of degrees of freedom of the vehicle during the

simulation process. Within this specific activity, the basic

level of vehicle dynamics model has been adopted, in

order to reduce the computation time of the procedure.

The target is a first approximation of the real benefits

related to the adoption of KERS (and not a detailed

quantitative analysis on a specific vehicle, which would

require the most sophisticated simulators of the

package).

VEHICLE DYNAMICS MODEL The adopted LTS

allows the optimization of vehicle performance by

simulating a F1 car negotiating the circuit in any of its

possible setup combinations.

In order to simulate a full lap, the circuit is discretized into

segments (typically 1 meter long). For each segment,

vehicle lateral acceleration is evaluated as a function of

the longitudinal speed and the path radius. The cornering

force required to maintain this lateral acceleration at a

given level of bank angle of the track can be computed.

By using a friction ellipse approach, tire force available in

longitudinal direction is found [5]. This value is limited by

the maximum traction force due to the engine (or it is not

limited, if the traction force due to the engine is larger

than the available force according to the friction ellipse).

reduced (and as a consequence the values of the lateral

forces) by steps until the computed tire forces are within

the friction ellipse. This procedure ensures that the total

combined lateral and longitudinal force generated by the

tire is consistent with the maximum available grip. This

approach considers the vehicle at its limits along the

track, so that the tires are working near their critical

condition in terms of grip. The friction ellipse formulation

considers the different tire behavior in traction or braking.

However, it does not take into account the temperature

effect on the grip limit.

The simulator computes the braking forces by assuming

them to be kept at the maximum possible value by the

driver (according to the friction level and the friction

ellipse approach). The model considers aerodynamic

forces in the form of experimental data as functions of

vehicle velocity.

In order to evaluate vehicle behavior along the whole

circuit and the lap time, the vehicle has to negotiate the

entire track four times in different conditions. These are:

1. During the first lap, the initial speed at the starting

line of the track is evaluated. In the first lap, the

vehicle is characterized by a null initial speed, which

increases according to the layout of the track and

vehicle characteristics. The final value of vehicle

velocity computed during this first lap is adopted as

starting point for the second lap;

2. Vehicle dynamics during traction is computed

(second lap). This is a repetition of the first lap, with

an initial condition in terms of vehicle velocity;

3. Vehicle behavior during braking is computed (this lap

is a reverse lap, third lap);

4. A merge between the results of the second and third

laps is carried out;

5. Vehicle performance estimated at point 4. is

corrected by considering KERS contribution to the

longitudinal forces during traction and braking (fourth

lap).

Surreys Advanced Vehicle Analysis Group (SAVAG) has

developed more sophisticated LTS software (in terms of

detailed simulation of vehicle motion), which will be

adopted for the second approximation analysis of KERS

performance. The most sophisticated software

developed by SAVAG includes the simulation of the full

motion of vehicle sprung mass and unsprung masses,

the simulation of suspension non-linear elastokinematics (including the effects related to the generation

of jacking forces, roll centre motions and suspension

compliances), and tire thermal effects (variation of tire

cornering stiffness, tire longitudinal slip stiffness and

longitudinal/lateral friction coefficients as functions of the

tire temperature level estimated by the software).

POWERTRAIN MODEL A map-based engine model is

implemented into the software. It permits to achieve an

output in terms of engine power/torque and engine fuel

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

throttle position.

The gearbox model takes into account the time lag

during gearshifts. Both sequential and non-sequential

models are implemented (for general race applications).

The gearbox is automatically actuated by the simulation

software as a function of engine speed values. Upshift is

actuated when engine speed reaches a threshold;

downshift is actuated when engine speed falls below a

lower threshold. In particular, the model computes the

gear ratios to be adopted along the circuit within the

second lap (according to the procedure described in the

former section). The gearbox strategy allows the vehicle

to have the best gear at the beginning of each traction

zone. Thanks to this strategy the maximum acceleration

is ensured.

BRAKING SYSTEM MODEL - The simulator provides a

simplified braking system model. It allows the evaluation

of KERS influence on brake forces and their distribution.

Figure 1 shows the braking system schematic. The

model computes, for the considered section of the track,

a reference value of total braking power (Pbraking). The

power related to engine brake effects (Pbraking,ICE) is

subtracted to Pbraking, so that the total brake power Pbraking

related to the conventional brakes and KERS is obtained.

If KERS can give origin, in the actual working conditions

of the vehicle on the track, to a brake power PKERS,MAX

level which is higher than Pbraking, the dissipative brake

system should not be used by the driver. Otherwise the

required levels of front and rear brake pressures (pfront

and prear) are computed as a function of the actual brake

distribution factor BD (due to the hydraulic and

mechanical layout of the brake system) and as a function

of vehicle parameters, like velocity V and the size of the

braking system components.

implemented LTS (for the abbreviations, refer to the

explanation in the final section of the paper)

KERS adopted within the LTS

KERS

The most sophisticated level of the SAVAG LTS software

is capable of considering the variation of brake pads

friction coefficients as functions of the estimated

temperature of the friction surfaces, brake pressure and

brake disc speed.

KERS MODEL The simulator considers three different

layouts for the capacitor based system (Figure 2) and

one layout for the mechanical system (Figure 3). The

efficiency of the different components of the powertrain

has been considered. Also the effect of the inertia of the

components of the powertrain has been simulated.

speeds along the circuits in previous races, it is possible

to demonstrate that in all the tracks currently adopted

within the Formula 1 Championship (Silverstone is the

track which implies the lowest level of regenerated

energy), the energy level which can be stored by KERS

through the regeneration of the rear braking forces

greatly exceeds the level of 400 kJ (during a single lap)

specified by the rules.

Also brake powers can easily exceed the level of 60 kW

specified for KERS. In fact, in Formula 1 the duration of

brake maneuvers is usually very short, but peak values

of some thousands kW (nearly 4000 kW, Figure 4) can

be dissipated within the brake system.

A simple procedure to evaluate the power flows

generated during braking is provided. Through equation

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

computed:

2

(1)

coefficient of the tires is:

PTIRE,ROLLING _ RESISTANCE = f0 + K V 2 m g V

(2)

computation of the rolling resistance coefficient (which is

a polynomial function of vehicle velocity), m is vehicle

mass, g is gravity. Tire rolling resistance can be

associated to the fact that the vertical force between the

tire and the road surface is applied to the front part of the

contact patch (and not to the centre). Then, the total

vertical force on the four tires can be calculated

through equation (3) and finally the power dissipated

within brakes (4).

FZ = m g + 1 AIR S CDOWN V 2

2

PBRAKING,100%efficiency = (FZ ) V

equivalent mass meq of the vehicle is equal to:

meq = m +

i

J i i2

R2

(6)

driveline, i is the gear ratio referred to the vehicle of

the ith component of the driveline, R is wheel radius.

(3)

(4)

the road pavement, CDOWN is the downforce

aerodynamic coefficient, PBRAKING,100%efficiency is the

maximum brake power which can be generated by the

friction contact between the tires and the road, is the

friction coefficient between the tires and the road

surface. The power related to equation (4) it is the

braking power in case of a braking system characterized

by a 100% efficiency level is due to the effect of engine

brake, KERS and dissipative brake. After the first two

contributions have been computed, the repartition factor

(Figure 1) between the front and rear brakes can be

adopted for the computation of the power levels on the

two axles, by considering the limitations related to the

real efficiency of the brake system. The total power

related to the deceleration a of the vehicle is equal to:

+ PTIRE,ROLLING _ RESISTANCE + PLONGITUDINAL_ GRADIENT +

PENGINE _ BRAKE is

PKERS is the power contribution related to KERS

activation,

the aerodynamic drag coefficient, V is vehicle velocity.

(5)

to vehicle deceleration, a is vehicle deceleration,

PLONGITUDINAL_ GRADIENT is the power contribution related

(total value and contribution of the rear brakes), power

related to the aerodynamic drag, maximum power

regenerated by KERS, total power related to vehicle

deceleration

Figure 4 plots the main power contributions related to

equations (1)-(5) vs. vehicle longitudinal speed. The

vehicle data adopted for these calculations are referred

to a race car of a few years ago. It is possible to observe

that the power level of the rear brakes exceeds the

maximum level (60kW) which can be recovered by

KERS for vehicle velocities below 50 km/h. This means

that the impact of the KERS system is not very significant

from the viewpoint of the brake distribution between the

front and the rear axles (as KERS contribution will be a

minority of the total required brake power, for typical

values of vehicle velocity). As a consequence, vehicle

dynamics during braking maneuvers should be

marginally affected by the new system (even if a proper

detailed analysis needs to be carried out).

Figure 5 summarizes the results of basic calculations for

a brake maneuver carried out from an initial velocity of

300 km/h, with a final velocity of 100 km/h, for two levels

of friction coefficient between the road surface and the

tire (1.3 and 1.75). The calculations show that a low

deceleration during the brake maneuver (for the same

values of initial and final velocities) implies a higher level

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

maneuver (KERS is continuously recovering the

maximum energy according to the Formula 1 rules, due

to the very low value of maximum KERS power in

comparison with the total brake power on the rear axle).

hypothesis, software like FCO, which does not imply a

lap time improvement, would not have any benefit.

However FIA has mentioned [2] the future intention of

limiting the overall fuel consumption of the vehicle. In

addition to this, within a complete analysis and

optimization of the race strategy, this software can be

useful in order to evaluate the possible benefits related to

the selection of the number of pit stops.

Figure 6 shows the schematic of the input/output

variables of FCO. It computes the optimal power

distribution between KERS and ICE along each traction

zone of the track, as a function of the required wheel

torque Twheel, the inserted gear, current vehicle velocity

and the cumulated energy level Erecovered already used by

KERS along the single lap.

recovered energies for a Formula 1 vehicle involved in

an extreme brake maneuver (initial speed equal to 300

km/h and final speed equal to 100 km/h), for values of

the friction coefficient (mu in the Figure) between the

tires and the road surface equal to 1.35 and 1.7

At the moment KERS is conceived as a system in order

to reduce the lap time without increasing vehicle fuel

consumption. The same system could be potentially

adopted, within a race strategy, in order to decrease fuel

consumption by keeping a reference velocity profile of

the vehicle along the track. If in the future the adoption of

KERS will be extended and/or new rules about fuel

consumption limitation will be implemented, KERS could

become useful in order to decrease vehicle fuel

consumption, rather than to increase the overall

performance. As a consequence, this section presents

an algorithm which permits:

without the adoption of the power boost related

to KERS;

To minimize fuel consumption through the

optimized adoption of KERS along the track.

presented LTS in order to determine the ideal KERS

utilization within a single lap from the viewpoint of fuel

consumption reduction.

FCO has been designed by supposing that the vehicle is

traveling at the longitudinal speed that it would have by

using the ICE only. The new regulations specify KERS as

a device in order to give origin to a power-boost and do

not specify a fuel consumption limit. The best way of

using it according to the 2009 rules will consist of

optimizing the performance of the vehicle from the

viewpoint of the lap time, without paying any attention to

control to obtain the lowest fuel consumption [6]. It helps

FCO to consider all KERS energy release possibilities,

maintaining the computational complexity in an

acceptable range. The simulator evaluates vehicle

maximum speed according to the limitations related to

the grip condition and maximum engine power. For each

simulation segment, the routine defines the operating

point on the engine map. FCO uses this information and

evaluates the best power split between ICE and KERS

(Optimal Control). Engine power evaluated by the

simulator is decreased by an amount equal to the

specified KERS power. Then a new engine operating

point and the related fuel consumption are computed.

KERS control problem involves the determination of the

ICE and KERS power flow profiles. KERS optimal control

defines the sequence of optimal power splits (at each

time instant) that minimizes the fuel consumption over a

given circuit. Formulated in this way, the problem can be

handled with DP, i.e. through a procedure capable of

taking decisions at every single stage that optimizes a

global cost function. DP application has a global

objective, the lowest overall fuel consumption, but also a

global constraint. In fact, one of the most desirable

features of KERS is to be charge sustaining: the quantity

of energy in the rechargeable source should be the same

before and after the lap. However, in the particular

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

limitations related to the current rules (400 kJ can be

recharged for sure).

A method such as DP is extremely appropriate to find the

solution. In order to explain the algorithm, a generic point

of the track is now considered (Figure 7 Point A).

It is characterized by a spatial coordinate distance = 3

(from the starting line of the track) and a generic energy

level En = 50% (En is the energy which can be still

produced by KERS during the lap). The transition

between this point and the spatial coordinate 4 can be

carried out according to different strategies in terms of

traction power flow through KERS.

Two limit strategies can be defined: the first one does not

imply any power release (PKERS = 0% in Figure 7),

whereas the second one implies the maximum rate of

energy release (PKERS = 100% in Figure 7). The

algorithm is capable of considering all the intermediate

transitions (e.g. PKERS = 50%) between the two limit

conditions. An energy discretization interval defined by

the user is adopted. The same procedure is repeated for

all the energy levels at each spatial coordinate.

routine

Several potential policies (according to the defined

parameters) reach the same energy level (e.g. 25%) at a

specific distance (distance 4 in Figure 7). The best policy

is the one characterized by the lowest fuel consumption

cumulated until this point. In general, this means that a

clear and unique condition to compare the different

policies at the same energy level can be defined by the

next formula:

if FCk(xi;En) < FCm(xi;En) FCk(xi;En) is the best policy

DP automatically eliminates the worse policy and saves,

for each admissible energy level at each spatial

coordinate, the vector containing the information (in

terms of cumulated fuel consumption and power level

supplied by the KERS) about the best policies. In the last

point of the track (distance = 6 in Figure 7), the best

policy is obtained. Finally, by adopting a recursive rule

from the track end to its starting point, the best policy is

reconstructed.

Accuracy

Simulation time

FCO Accuracy and the simulation time (Core2Duo 2.13

GHz 1.96 Gb of RAM)

traction zones (T1, T2, , Ti) and braking zones (B)

Energy discretization value affects the optimization

procedure and also simulation time. Figure 8 shows the

relationship between the simulation time and the energy

discretization unit (energy lattice) for a typical case study.

The diagram also points out the influence of

discretization on the optimization accuracy. FC(i) is the

th

fuel consumption value obtained for the i level of energy

discretization. The best fuel consumption (FCbest) refers

to the value obtained using FCO with the best resolution

in terms of possible energy levels.

FCO RESULTS The performance of the routine is

analyzed on a typical circuit. The track (Figure 9) is

divided (by the software) into the different traction and

braking zones automatically computed by the LTS

according to an ideal driving strategy.

Figure 10 plots vehicle longitudinal speed along the

track. Figure 11 shows engine operating points within the

engine map along the third traction zone, for both the

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

not referred to a real F1 vehicle, this is a demonstration

of the capabilities of the software. It is possible to point

out that in conditions of low torque KERS tends to be

deactivated since the specific fuel consumption surface

decreases for higher engine torque values.

(this value is referred to the data of the specific case

study, an actual current Formula 1 vehicle is thought to

achieve fuel consumption reduction by 3-5% on the

same track). The specific example of track is one of the

longest in Formula 1, then by considering that on all the

circuits KERS is able to recover 400kJ, it is possible to

state that FCO would possibly have better performance

(an higher fuel consumption reduction in percentage) on

other circuits.

KERS Off

pavement (B: braking zones, Ti: traction zones)

According to the particular example of engine map data,

KERS has to be activated by a small amount of power,

nearly continuously along the entire track. This is the

ideal control for the KERS along the track. For a real

driver it would be very difficult to follow the optimal

control, as it would imply a smooth modulation of the

system (however it is a useful suggestion of what should

be done). By observing Figure 11, it is also possible to

affirm that the engine operating points are (for a

significant duration of the considered traction zone)

constrained by the friction limit between the tires and

track surface and not by the engine power.

KERS On

considered track with and without KERS (controlled by

FCO)

CONCLUSIONS ABOUT FCO FCO guarantees the

optimal control in terms of fuel consumption optimization.

Thanks to this software it is possible to state that the fuel

saving due to FCO is significant. FCO should become a

key point in order to compute the optimal control if future

rules will be imposed in order to limit fuel consumption

during a race.

The aims of this section are:

along the third traction zone (the difference in terms of

engine operating points with and without KERS is

marginal for example look at the area close to the

ellipse)

Figure 12 shows fuel consumption (expressed in liter per

100 kilometers) along the track. KERS controlled by FCO

allows optimizing fuel consumption. During an entire lap

on the considered track, FCO allows a fuel consumption

Programming cannot be adopted within Lap

Time Optimization;

The description of the implemented software,

based on the minimization of the lap time on an

assigned track, through an effective adoption of

the KERS;

An overall analysis of the parts of the tracks

where the power boost related to KERS can give

origin to the most effective result in terms of lap

time reduction.

energy to give an extra power boost to the vehicle. DP

cannot be adopted within LTO. Let us consider the case

of an ideal section of a track consisting of two straights

linked by two bends characterized by the same curvature

radius. Let us suppose that the first straight is 1000 m

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

curvature of the bends before each straight is the same,

the initial velocity of the vehicle on each straight will be

the same (the bends can be neglected in the analysis). In

a very first approximation, the velocity of the two vehicles

along the two bends can be assumed equal. Let us

compare the performance of two alternative control

algorithms for KERS, the first one characterized by the

full utilization of KERS power during the first part of the

first straight, the second one characterized by the full

utilization of KERS power during the first part of the

second straight. For example, if KERS can give origin to

its power boost for a distance equal to 300 m (after

which the energy available for a single lap is over), after

1300 m (the bends are neglected) the two alternative

control strategies would be characterized by the same

residual energy level for KERS (zero energy level).

According to a DP algorithm based on the time required

for traveling from the starting point to the considered

coordinate of the track, the first algorithm would be the

better, as the intervention of the KERS would give origin

to a benefit along the entire first straight (1000 m long,

the velocity benefit related to KERS power boost is

effective also after its 300 m long intervention) whereas

the second algorithm would have given origin (for the

coordinate x = 1300 m) to a benefit limited to the first 300

m of the second straight. However, from a real viewpoint

of the laptime, the second algorithm would be better, as

it would give origin to a benefit extended to the last 2000

m of the second straight (it is better to achieve an

increase of vehicle velocity for a length equal to 2000 m

rather than 1000 m). A DP algorithm based on time could

be implemented only if the comparison for the definition

of the optimal policy were carried out for a given value of

energy level (as in FCO) and also vehicle velocity (this is

the additional factor). As a consequence, for each spatial

coordinate of the circuit, a set of possible energy levels

and vehicle velocities should be considered. The result is

a significant increase of the complexity of the procedure,

which becomes a bidimensional optimization procedure.

As a consequence, a brute force method (brute force

method or exhaustive search is a trivial but very general

problem-solving

technique,

that

consists

of

systematically enumerating all possible candidates for

the solution and checking whether each candidate

satisfies the problem stated) has been implemented.

The algorithm has different steps:

1. LTO identifies the different traction zones (zones

along which a positive engine torque needs to be

applied);

2. LTO orders the different zones according to their

lengths, as the length of the traction zone is the main

index for a potentially high benefit of KERS in terms

of lap time (as a function of what discussed within

the previous trivial example which demonstrated the

problems related the implementation of DP within

LTO);

3. LTO asks the user how many traction zones he

wants to consider within this analysis. The software

automatically considers the zones starting from the

longest one;

lap time against all the possible energy release

distributions between the different traction zones.

The result is a simulation campaign whose

dimension depends on the number of considered

traction zones and on the energy unit discretization

adopted for the distribution of KERS activations in

the different traction zones;

5. LTO chooses the best strategy and carries out a final

simulation by considering this energy profile.

ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS In this section the

effect of the main parameters having an influence on the

lap time is analyzed.

Activation point and power rate This section shows the

optimal activation point for a sample oval track. KERS

activation point refers to the point where KERS starts

releasing its energy. In particular, this section analyzes

the influence of the distance between the activation point

and the initial point of the considered traction zone (i.e.

the initial point of each straight in the specific example).

Different simulations have been carried out to identify the

best point to discharge KERS energy. The lap times

obtained by releasing KERS energy at different distances

from the beginning of the traction zone are plotted in

Figure 13. KERS achieves the best performance if

activated at the beginning of each straight.

(LT) and lap time variation (LT(i)-LTmin)) (50% of KERS

energy released within each straight section)

By considering the results attached to this section, it is

demonstrated that the best KERS activation point is the

first point of the traction zone. In the same way, it has

been proved that the optimal control is obtained if the

KERS energy is released at the maximum possible rate

(Maximum Power).

Initial Velocity Influence on the optimal control This

analysis aims to demonstrate that the KERS energy

discharging strategy is more convenient on a traction

zone where the initial velocity (the velocity at the first

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

a track characterized by two straight sections having the

same length. The first straight is characterized by a lower

initial velocity than the second one. This is due to the

layout of the bends which are located at the entrance of

each straight section.

profiles according to two different strategies are

compared and the related time difference in terms of

time DeltaTime is plotted)

The result is related to two different effects. Firstly, the

non conservative forces are lower if the speed along the

straight section is lower. Secondly, and most importantly,

if we consider kinetic energy conservation, if the

longitudinal speed is lower, it is possible to achieve an

extra acceleration. By neglecting the effect of the non

conservative forces (this approximation is not realistic at

all it is now adopted just to explain the basic concept),

it is:

E =

1

2

2

meq Vfinal

Vinitial

2

(7)

is vehicle velocity at the beginning of KERS activation,

origin to:

Vfinal =

2 E

2

+ Vinitial

meq

(8)

strongly depends on the initial speed. For example, if the

initial speed of the vehicle is equal to 100 km/h, at the

end of the energy release from KERS the velocity is

equal to 165 km/h (+65%), whereas if the initial velocity

is equal to 200 km/h the final velocity at the end of KERS

activation would be 240 km/h (+20%, under the

unrealistic hypothesis but the statement remains true

anyway of neglecting the non-conservative forces).

control - This section shows the results obtained by

analyzing the effect of the longitudinal gradient of the

track. This analysis studies if the KERS energy discharge

is more convenient on a positive longitudinal gradient

zone rather than a zone where the longitudinal gradient

is negative. By convention, the longitudinal gradient is

considered positive when the vertical coordinate is

growing.

simplified track adopted for Figure 14

By observing the results obtained through the

implemented models, the longitudinal gradient has an

influence on the optimal control. If the pilot wants to

make the maximum use of the KERS energy, he has to

discharge more energy when the longitudinal slope is

positive rather than negative.

Indeed, at a positive longitudinal gradient corresponds a

lower velocity and, consistently with what stated in the

previous paragraph, it is clear that in this zone it is better

to release KERS energy. The significance of the gradient

on the activation of the KERS system appears to be

much less in comparison with the weight related to the

length of the traction zone or the initial speed.

LTO CONCLUSIONS This section shows the results

obtained through the adoption of the developed software

for the simulation of a lap along a real track. Chart 1

shows the distribution (between the different traction

zones of the track of Figure 9) of the energy discharged

by the KERS system, according to the best input defined

by the LTO routine. By considering the results of Chart 1

and Figure 16, it is possible to state that the two most

important parameters that influence LTO are the length

of the traction zone and its initial speed.

Zone

EKERS

[%]

Vstart

[km/h]

Length

[m]

st

nd

rd

th

th

th

th

th

40

20

10

30

282

108

85

134

162

222

241

277

570

20

1091

95

569

1092

1231

894

distribution of KERS energy utilization along the different

traction zones (numbered as functions of their length) of

a track

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

of the LTO along a track: distribution of the energy

released in the different traction zones of the track (with

their respective length and initial velocity). KERS should

be activated within the traction zones characterized by a

low initial velocity and a significant length

The aim of this routine developed within the LTS consists

of selecting the best race strategy in order to minimize

the overall race time. The routine considers the influence

of the pit stops (for refueling and substituting the tires)

and optimizes their distribution during the race. It also

specifies the ideal amount of fuel which should be

delivered to the vehicle at the beginning of the

competition and during each pit stop.

The algorithm consists of the following steps:

(for different values of vehicle mass) along the

considered track, in conditions of optimal strategy in

terms of lap time (LTO) or fuel consumption (FCO).

The results are saved in a vector which contains the

lap times (and the required additional information

selected by the user in order to achieve a full picture

of vehicle performance) computed for the different

values of vehicle mass depending on the amount of

fuel in the tank;

2. Definition of the possible strategies (in terms of pit

stop distribution during the race) in order to complete

the race (through the implementation of a brute force

algorithm). This section of the routines generates all

the possible alternatives which will be evaluated

within point 3;

3. Evaluation of the total race time and total fuel

consumption for each single strategy, by combining

the results obtained at point 1. and the options

defined at point 2.;

4. Detection of the two best strategies, the first one

characterized by one pit stop and the second one

characterized by two pit stops.

typical track

After each lap, the mass value used for the computation

of the cumulative race time at point 3. is reduced by the

fuel consumption related to the previous lap. This loop

continues until vehicle mass is lower then the minimum

value (imposed by the user at the beginning of the

simulation), which implies a pit stop. For each value of

vehicle mass, PSO carries out two simulations (step 1.),

the first one related to a lap without refueling and the

second one considering a pit stop lap, including its

braking phase, refueling time and re-acceleration (the

reference value of vehicle mass for the pit stop lap is

referred to the condition of refueled vehicle, as the

software imposes the pit stop when the vehicle is

characterized by the minimum level of fuel selected by

the user any strategy considered within PSO is

characterized by the same level of mass in the lap

immediately before the pit stop).

PIT STOP LAP SIMULATION Referring to Figure 17,

two different vehicle trajectories are possible within one

lap, with or without a pit stop:

Normal Lap :

OA + AB + BO

(9)

initial coordinate of the last traction zone before the

vehicle enters the pit stop lane. Point A is the coordinate

of the track at which the vehicle enters the main track

after the pit stop. From point A to point B vehicle path will

be the same for a normal lap and a pit stop lap.

Due to refueling, vehicle mass during the pit stop lap has

two different values (smaller before the pit stop):

ABox Minimum _ Mass MM

The following part of this

approximations adopted within

reduce the complexity of

computation of the pit stop lap.

(10)

the simulator in order to

the algorithm for the

In particular, a simulation

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

of two laps is analyzed: the pit stop lap and the first lap

after the pit stop (in conditions of increased vehicle

weight). Formulas (11) express the values of vehicle

masses which characterize the vehicle (the actual

vehicle and the simulated vehicle) within the different

sections of the track during the two laps (according to

what happens during the race and according to the

simplified calculations of the simulator):

REAL DESCRIPTION :

OAMM + AB MM + BBox MM +

+ BoxAHM + AB HM + BO HM

PSO DESCRIPTION :

OAMM + AB MM + BO MM +

+ BoxA HM + AB HM + BBox HM

(11)

) (

= BO HM - BO MM + BBox MM - BBox HM

(12)

contributions. The first contribution is related to the

braking phase during the section

strategies (in case of one and two pit stops) considering

the optimization of the performance in terms of fuel

consumption and lap time for the entire race. This

section shows examples of results for the following

cases (these simulations are shown in order to deal with

the potential of the software, not for a quantitative

analysis of the results):

the different sections of the track. By subtracting the

second expression to the first one, the error related to

the simplifications of the simulator is obtained:

acceleration phase after the pit stop (vehicle reacceleration includes a first re-acceleration along the pit

stop lane from 0 to 100 km/h , a constant velocity

phase and a second acceleration at the end of the pit

stop lane).

tBBox MM tBBox HM

1. of the routine of the PSO is carried out by the

FCO. The global optimization strategy of the

PSO is based on lap time minimization also in

this case;

Lap time optimization. In this case step 1. of the

routine of the PSO is carried out by the LTO.

variation of the race time RT(i) (race consisting of 25

laps) according to the i-th race strategy in comparison

with the best scenario (RTBEST-RT). Figure 18 (referred to

a single pit stop scenario) shows that it is more

convenient to start the race with a significant fuel level in

the tank. In addition Figure 19 confirms this statement in

case of a 2 pit stop strategy.

(13)

the track (specified by the subscript). The braking phase

in the pit stop lane is not significantly influenced by the

value of vehicle mass. As a consequence, this

simplification is acceptable.

case vehicle performances are optimized by the FCO

and in case the vehicle is not equipped with KERS.

Figure 20 shows the correlation between the pit stop

strategy and the total amount of fuel consumed during

the race (RFC).

BO of the track:

t BO

HM

t BO

(14)

MM

performance. As consequence, the times to cover

section BO of the track for the different mass values are

saved. Thus the pit stop lap time LTPSL,MM is modified by

considering the correct vehicle mass for this section.

(15)

possible tire substitution). Vehicle velocity during the pit

stop lap includes the first deceleration in order to reach

the speed level required along the pit stop lane, the

constant velocity section (pit lane before the pit stop), the

pit stop (refueling phase at zero velocity) and the re-

considered track. Lap times are optimized by LTO

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

that the best strategy in order to obtain the best race time

is the lap time optimization (by LTO). This strategy allows

saving about 17 sec (over a total race time of more than

1 hour) in comparison with a vehicle having the same

mass without KERS and 14 sec considering the FCO

strategy. The fact that the optimized strategy based on

the adoption of the FCO permits a better performance

than the vehicle without KERS is significant. The FCObased strategy (Figure 22) allows significant fuel savings

in comparison with the LTO based strategy.

considered track. Lap times are optimized by LTO

different optimization routines (FCO and LTO) on the

considered track

CONCLUSION

Figure 20 PSO results in case of 2 pit-stops on the

considered track. Fuel consumption RFC is optimized by

FCO

The target of this analysis is the definition of the best

solution for a whole race. In other words, this analysis

has to distinguish which optimization between the FCO

and LTO allows the vehicle to obtain the lower race time.

PSO guarantees the best pit stop strategy between those

simulated by LTO and FCO.

routines (FCO and LTO) and pit stop strategies on the

considered track

different options of KERS plants has been developed. It

permits to optimize lap time (LTO routine) or fuel

consumption (FCO routine) either for a single lap or for

the entire race, including the pit stop phase (PSO). As a

function of the results achieved during the activity, the

following conclusions can be drafted:

All tracks currently adopted within the Formula 1

Championship permit the regeneration of more

than 400 kJ (maximum value of regenerated

energy within one lap according to the 2009

rules). As a consequence, there is significant

potential for a more extensive adoption of KERS.

The effect of KERS activation on the front to rear

brake force distribution is not very significant

(due to the current limitation of the system in

terms of power).

KERS management for fuel consumption

minimization appears complex (to be managed

by the driver) in terms of time history of required

KERS power along the lap.

In terms of lap time optimization, it is better to

use KERS power during the longest traction

zones of the circuit (and the KERS should be

discharged at the maximum rate).

Downloaded from SAE International by Coventry University, Monday, September 29, 2014

use KERS power for the traction zones

characterized by the lowest initial velocity.

The influence of the longitudinal slope of the

road in terms of the overall performance of the

vehicle equipped with KERS is negligible.

The adoption of KERS can provoke a non

negligible benefit in terms of fuel consumption.

The optimum distribution of the pit stops and

amount of fuel for each pit stop can be

computed through the adoption of the PSO

routine.

by adopting the most sophisticated vehicle dynamics

model within the LTS software of the University of

Surrey.

REFERENCES

1. FIA Formula One Technical Regulation 2009 document update 22/12/06.

2. M. Mosley, 2006 British Grand Prix, Press

Conference, June 9, 2006.

3. Flybrid Flywheel Hybrid System Passes First Crash

Test; Developing for Road Cars as Well. Green Car

Congress.

October

28,

2007,

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/10/flybridflywhee.html.

4. Flybrid F1 Kinetic Energy Recovery System Voted

Engine Innovation of the Year, Green Car Congress,

November 9, 2007.

5. Milliken W., Milliken D.L., Race Car Vehicle

Dynamics, Ed. SAE International, ISBN 1-560915269, 1995.

6. Brahma A., Guezennec Y., Rizzoni G., Dynamic

Optimization of Mechanical/Electrical Power Flow in

Parallel Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Proceedings of the

5th International Symposium in Advanced Vehicle

Control, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

7. Bertsekas D.P., Dynamic Programming and Optimal

nd

Control, 2 Edition, Athena Scientific, 2001.

8. Thomas D. W., Segal D. J., Milliken D. L.,

Michalowicz J., Analysis and Correlation Using Lap

Time Simulation Dodge Stratus for the North

American Touring Car Championship, SAE 962528.

Tool for Lap Time Simulation, SAE 962529.

10. Gadola M., Vetturi D., Candelpergher A.,

Developments of a Method for Lap Time Simulation,

SAE 2000-01-3562.

11. Law E. H., Morales J., Lap Time Simulation of Stock

Cars on Super Speedways With Random Wind

Gusts, SAE 2004-01-3509.

12. Siegler B., Crolla D., Lap Time Simulation for Racing

Car Design, SAE 2002-01-0567.

13. Siegler B., Crolla D., Deakin A., Lap Time

Simulation: Comparison of Steady State, QuasiStatic and Transient Racing Car Cornering

Strategies, SAE 2000-01-3563.

ABBREVIATIONS

EM: Electric Motor

SCap: Super Capacitor

CONTR: Controller

DIFF: Differential

CVT: Continuous variable transmission

ICE: Internal Combustion Engine

RT: Refueling time

LT: Lap time

PSL: Pit Stop Lap

PSO: Pit Stop Optimization

LTO: Lap Time Optimization

FCO: Fuel Consumption Optimization

CONTACT

Aldo Sorniotti

Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences (FEPS)

University of Surrey

GU2 7XH Guildford

United Kingdom

Phone: +44 (0)1483 689688

Email: a.sorniotti@surrey.ac.uk

- Service Book DD70Uploaded byMACHINERY101GEAR
- F308manual v03Uploaded byJohn McGill
- Dallara f308 Owners Manual 2013 AprobUploaded byblancohcc
- A Study of Kinetic Energy Recovery SystemsUploaded byMohammad Usman
- DRUM PHHUploaded byNguyen Hai
- Chess Engine TricksUploaded bytedxiii
- A Tool for Lap Time SimulationUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- eita giovannaUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Racecar EngineeringUploaded byAlessio Scarabelli
- Formula1 Race-car AerodynamicsUploaded byLokesh Patil
- Developments of a Method for Lap Time SimulationUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- 1 ChassisUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- A1GP Car Manual Issue 1 3Uploaded bytorreunolasmercedes
- Gp2 User Manual 2008 v1.0Uploaded bypollas
- Race Car Aerodynamics - Joseph Katz - 1st EditionUploaded bypenthagram
- Race SeminarUploaded byAngel Marin
- Lotus Suspension AnalysisUploaded byAnbu Sachinist
- HL7407AUploaded byluismdmj
- SAP-PM-TrainingUploaded byVaibhav
- H50DUploaded byDanny Mora
- 13,500-20,000 lb IC Pneumatic Tier III.pdfUploaded byForklift Systems Incorporated
- Jaguar 5hp24Uploaded byLuis Velazquez
- BIG X 500.pdfUploaded bybubulelaman
- BS EN 14198.pdfUploaded byAnonymous cjODYIj
- Synthetic Lubricant Base Stocks Formulations Guide EnUploaded bySaheed Poyil
- simotics-hv-overview-en.pdfUploaded byserkalemt
- 20170602 Single Hoist Crane Inspection Report 02-1009223_J1610688_NQ5728_.pdfUploaded byAnonymous N2Se0bY
- Reliance ElectricUploaded byDeepak Jain
- Bidvest Luxi Cover - November 2014Uploaded byrcpretorius
- Storm BrakesUploaded byrochim_putech_126885

- Vehicle DynamicsUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Aerodynamics of Gurney Flaps on a Single-Element High-Lift Wing.pdfUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Manual Powerbank PB-6KUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Frequency Dictionary of GermanUploaded byshowmer
- Using Modelica Models for Driver-In-The-loop SimulatorsUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Vibration Based Monitoring Applied to the Identification of DefectsUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Assignment 1Uploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Advanced Dynamics _ TU Delft OnlineUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- University-of-Southampton-Undergraduate-Prospectus-2016.pdfUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Developments of a Method for Lap Time SimulationUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- cl vs alphaUploaded byrahultri333
- A Tool for Lap Time Simulation.pdfUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- ADAMS Tutorial - Session 1 - DOFsUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- eita giovannaUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- A Tool for Lap Time SimulationUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Data Acquisition System for a Formula SAE Race CarUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Stress Analysis of Piping SystemsUploaded byShijumon Kp
- 1 ChassisUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Politecnica_di_Torino_Specific qualification.PDFUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- ENSAIO MACARRAOUploaded bysunaramello
- NAS120 WS14 Parasolid ModelingUploaded byPieter Van Asch
- Patran 2010 Reference Manual Part 1: Basic FunctionsUploaded byDon
- Application of Computers to Automobile AerodynamicsUploaded byRodrigo Bob
- Response Surface Methodology (Rsm) and Design of Experiments (Doe) Applied to Racecar Vehicle Dynamics Simulation and DevelopmentUploaded byRodrigo Bob

- Autogard Automatic and Manual BarriersUploaded byursula c silalahi
- Corpus Christi Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone No. 3 scooter regulationsUploaded bycallertimes
- 4 Mini Case Studies EDUploaded bySenthil Kumar
- CodesUploaded byAnonymous 6myGzJvA
- 21778Uploaded bythagarajan7625
- C1324+SVT_final.pdfUploaded byRonald George
- Construction Safety Inspection ChecklistUploaded byNguyen Hong Quan
- Concept Paper for VICSUploaded byAsad Gilani
- Hybrid WheelchairUploaded byAhmed Shoeeb
- Adnec Organiser Handbook May 2017Uploaded bySolomonmadhankumar
- Erezo v. JepteUploaded byronald
- road safety pamfletUploaded byZuniAsih
- Service FormUploaded byrishiukai
- Literature ReviewUploaded byTyler McPherson
- Steam Laundry vs CAUploaded byruss8diko
- Car Sharing Policy and Pilot Project DraftUploaded byBrendan Nee
- Flight Path 2050Uploaded byIuga Vasile
- 1-Body & Equipment Manual.pdfUploaded byPaul Silab
- 006.025 - Control of Remote Area Travel and Search-Rescue ProceduresUploaded bytimam
- rotary scissor glp30 manual pdfUploaded byCykhong Khong
- 01 Intro Fifth Wheel Couplings and Mounting Plates eUploaded byAbrar Hussain
- Vehicle Tracking 050209Uploaded byJinalS
- Ferrari F430 Owner Maintenance Manual 2 of 2Uploaded byRicky Zeng
- Rotary Lift Specs SM122Uploaded byJhoffaX
- Cyberpunk CCG RulesUploaded byMauricio Butrón Díaz
- TRANSPORTATION: Transportation in the Post-Carbon World by Richard Gilbert and Anthony PerlUploaded byPost Carbon Institute
- Shadowrun the Shadowrun Supplemental 018Uploaded byChristyMayfeld
- e 2061 - 02Uploaded byYogiIndraPrayoga
- Power Generation by using Suspension SystemUploaded byIRJET Journal
- Braking SystemUploaded byeeit_nizam