IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO.

5, OCTOBER 2006 513

Recent Advances in Control-Oriented Modeling of

Automotive Power Train Dynamics
Joško Deur, Member, IEEE, Joško Petrić, Jahan Asgari, and Davor Hrovat, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—This paper presents a survey of the recent research ka Equivalent half-shaft stiffness.
results of the authors in the field of modeling of automotive power keb Equivalent stiffness of the engine block
train systems and components. The goal of the research is to pro- mounts in the pitch direction.
pose simple and accurate power train models for controller design
and to propose computationally efficient simulations. The mod- L Tire–road contact patch length.
eling includes typical power train components such as electronic Lf Equivalent fluid inertia length of the torque
throttle, SI engine, torque converter, planetary gear set, wet clutch, converter.
differential, half shaft, and tire. Experimental model validation re- M Engine torque.
sults are presented. Mb Engine load torque.
Index Terms—Control, dynamics, modeling, power train, road p Manifold air pressure.
vehicles. papp , p Applied clutch pressure(s).
r Effective tire radius.
NOMENCLATURE R Gas constant.
a Inner clutch diameter. s Operator of the Laplace transform.
A0 Cross-sectional flow area of the torque con- Si,t,s Characteristic torque converter area con-
verter. stants.
b Outer clutch diameter. t Time.
ba Equivalent half-shaft damping. Ta Ambient temperature; dc motor armature
bii , bit , bti , btt Damping coefficients of the second-order time constant.
torque converter model (calculated from the T Manifold air temperature; clutch torque.
torque converter static curves). Td Engine combustion delay.
beb Equivalent damping of the engine block Tp Nondominant time constant of the second-
mounts in the pitch direction. order torque converter model.
f0 Steady-state functions of the torque con- Tr Engine runner air temperature.
verter. Tv Time constant due to the torque converter
F Tire force. fluid inertia effect.
Fapp Applied clutch force. v Wheel center speed.
Fz Normal force to tire. vr Tire–road relative speed (slip speed).
g Speed ratio of the second planetary gear. V Manifold volume.
g(vr ) Sliding tire friction function (friction poten- Vf Torque converter fluid velocity.
tial function). Wi Throttle air-mass flow.
h Manifold heat-transfer coefficient; clutch Wo Engine port air-mass flow.
fluid film thickness; speed ratio of the first z̃ Average horizontal tire tread deflection.
planetary gear. z Horizontal tire tread deflection.
i Differential speed ratio. αb Half of the transmission backlash angle.
I Engine inertia. ζ Bristle position inside tire–road contact
Iii , Iit , Iti , Itt Equivalent cross-coupling inertia of the patch.
second-order torque converter model (calcu- θ Throttle angle.
lated from Ii,t and bii,it,ti,tt ). θLH Limp-home throttle position.
Ii,t,s Impeller, turbine, and stator inertia. θR Reference throttle angle.
κ Ratio of the specific thermal capacities; char-
Manuscript received October 29, 2005; revised June 16, 2006. Recommended acteristic coefficient of lumped tire friction
by Guest Editor K. Jezernik. This work was supported in part by the Ford Motor model.
Company, and in part by the Ministry of Science, Education, and Sports of the ν Empiric scaling factor of the clutch model
Republic of Croatia.
J. Deur and J. Petrić are with the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and squeeze-speed equation.
Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb HR-10002, Croatia (e-mail: ρ Fluid density.
josko.deur@fsb.hr; josko.petric@fsb.hr). σ0,1 Tire tread stiffness and damping coefficients.
J. Asgari and D. Hrovat are with the Ford Research and Advanced Engineer-
ing, Dearborn, MI 48121 USA (e-mail: jasgari@ford.com; dhrovat@ford.com). σ2 Tire–road viscous friction coefficient.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TMECH.2006.882980 τdif = 2(1 − i−1 )τhs . Reactive differential torque.

1083-4435/$20.00 © 2006 IEEE

514
Fig. 1. Functional diagram of the power train with automatic transmission (for the brake-on case).
τe = τi . Output engine torque (load torque).
τft Turbine-side transmission friction.
τfs Differential-side transmission friction.
τhs Half-shaft torque.
τi,t,s Impeller, turbine, and stator torque.
τs Gear set output torque (differential input
torque).
ϕRHS RHS term in the torque converter fluid flow
state equation.
ω Engine speed; clutch relative speed (slip
speed); wheel rotational speed.
ωdo Differential output speed.
ωe . ωi . Engine speed.
ωeb Engine block speed in the pitch direction.
ωi,t,s Impeller, turbine, and stator speed.
ωs Gear set output speed (differential input
speed).
I. INTRODUCTION
ONTROL-oriented power train models should be as sim-
C ple as possible to facilitate controller design and provide
computationally efficient simulations. At the same time, they
need to accurately capture relevant (dominant) modes of the
power train dynamics [1]–[3].
This paper presents a survey of the authors’ recent work
in this field, as an extension of the fundamental effort in [1]
and [2]. The emphasis is on an analysis and on the model-
ing of several, usually neglected power train dynamics effects,
which include air temperature transients in the SI engine intake
manifold, electronic throttle lag, torque converter dynamics, au-
tomatic transmission component friction and backlash, clutch
friction dynamics and drag, and tire friction dynamics.
II. FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION OF POWER TRAIN
Fig. 1 depicts the structure of the considered power train with
automatic transmission. The torque of a spark-ignition inter-
nal combustion engine is controlled by an electronic throttle.
The electronic throttle (or drive-by-wire system) is typically a
low-power dc servo drive that positions the throttle plate, thus
controlling the amount of air-mass flow into the engine cylin-
ders.
The torque converter is a three-element hydrodynamic fluid
coupling, which provides damping of power train vibrations
and torque multiplication during the vehicle drive-away phase.
It consists of the impeller (pump) that is connected to the engine,
the turbine that is connected to the transmission, and the stator
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2006
(reactor) that is connected to the engine block through a one-way
clutch.
The transmission considered here is a typical four-speed
front-wheel-drive automatic transmission consisting of a pair
of planetary gears. The transmission speed ratio is controlled
by changing the hydraulic pressures p at different wet clutches
that can be of a plate or a band design. The differential connects
the gear set output shaft to the wheels, provides the gear-based
torque multiplication, and allows each wheel to rotate at a differ-
ent speed. The wheels are connected to the differential through
compliant half shafts. The wheels and the vehicle mass are not
included in Fig. 1, because the brake-on case is primarily consid-
ered herein (relevant for transmission engagements). If needed,
they can be added into the model, as shown in [1] and [2].
The engine, torque converter, gear set, and differential are
mounted on the engine block, which is connected to the vehicle
body and the subframe through several compliant mounts. From
the standpoint of power train modeling, the relatively complex
engine block dynamics may be approximately described by an
equivalent inertia–spring–damper system that moves in the pitch
direction.
More detailed descriptions of the power train system and its
components can be found in [4].
III. ELECTRONIC THROTTLE
The electronic throttle process model is given on the right
of Fig. 2(a). It consists of the dc motor and the chopper linear
model, extended with the friction and dual return spring non-
linearities mf (ω) and ms (θ), respectively. In order to capture
the experimentally observed presliding–displacement friction
effect, a dynamic friction model has been developed and vali-
dated in [5] and [6].
The throttle angle experimental response in Fig. 3(a) demon-
strates that the electronic throttle can effectively be controlled by
a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller for the large-
signal operating mode [7]. However, as shown by the dashed
lines in Fig. 3(b) and (c), the electronic throttle performance
in the small-signal operating mode is significantly affected by
the friction and limp-home nonlinearities [6]. In order to im-
prove the small-signal operating mode performance, the PID
controller is extended in [6] by nonlinear friction and limp-home
compensators [Fig. 2(a)]. Fig. 3 indicates that the application
of compensators provides similar, desired control performance
for different operating modes, i.e., the highly nonlinear process
behavior is effectively linearized. This can also be achieved in
the presence of variations of process parameters (e.g., motor ar-
mature resistance, battery voltage, and friction) if the nonlinear
DEUR et al.: RECENT ADVANCES IN CONTROL-ORIENTED MODELING OF AUTOMOTIVE POWER TRAIN DYNAMICS
Fig. 2. Block diagrams. (a) Nonlinear electronic throttle control system. (b) Equivalent linear term.
control strategy is extended by auto-tuning and/or self-tuning
adaptation mechanisms [8].
Therefore, from the standpoint of design (and simulation)
of a relatively slow superimposed engine control system, the
nonlinear electronic throttle control system may be described
by the elementary, linear, first-order equivalent lag term shown
in Fig. 2(b), with the equivalent time constant Teθ equal to half of
the throttle step response rise time (Teθ ≈ 30 ms). This approach
has been applied in [9] and [10] for the design of an idle speed
controller consisting of a relatively slow PI feedback controller
and a fast load torque compensator based on an adaptive load
torque estimator.
IV. SI ENGINE
Design of different engine control systems is usually based on
the mean value engine model (MVEM) [11], [12]. A simplified
MVEM is shown in Fig. 4 (see also Nomenclature). As needed,
the model static maps can be extended to account for additional
input variables (e.g., air–fuel ratio, spark advance, and cam
timing), and the model structure can be extended to account for
the exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) effect [11]–[14].
A traditional MVEM, such as that shown in Fig. 4, is based
on the assumption of constant temperature of intake-manifold
air (isothermal assumption). However, the experimental results
in [13] and [15]–[17] have pointed toward significant changes
of manifold air temperature during typical tip-in/tip-out
transients. In order to capture the experimentally observed
effects, the following polytropic manifold model has been
derived in [15]–[17] based on the ideal gas law, and mass and
energy conservation equations:


κR Q̇
ṗ = Wi Ta − Wo T +
V cp
515
 
RT Q̇
Ṫ = κ(Wi Ta − Wo T ) − T (Wi − Wo ) + (2)
pV cv
where the rate of convective heat transfer from the manifold
walls to the manifold air is given by
Q̇ = hAw (Tw − T ) (3)
where Tw and Aw are the manifold wall temperature and the
area, respectively. The adiabatic heat transfer constant κ is
defined as the ratio of specific thermal capacities, κ = cp /cv ,
and is equal to 1.4 for an ideal gas. If there is no manifold
heat transfer (h = 0), (1) reduces to the adiabatic model as an
opposite case of the isothermal model.
Unlike the simplified case of constant manifold heat trans-
fer coefficient h in [15], an average manifold flow-dependent
coefficient h has been proposed and experimentally validated
in [17]
 0.75
Wi + W o
h = Kh
2
where the constant Kh can be determined in three different ways:
1) based on the steady-state form of model (1) and experimen-
tally determined static maps (including the temperature map);
2) using the simplified analytical heat transfer model based on a
multitube manifold representation; and 3) using complex finite-
elements software packages. An additional, empirical tuning of
the coefficient Kh may be needed to capture the temperature
transients accurately.
Fig. 5 shows the experimental validation results for the
MVEM comprising the polytropic manifold submodel (1)–(3).
An experimental setup of 14-hp V2 Briggs & Stratton SI engine
was used for this purpose [18]. The nonlinear maps in Fig. 4
were described by look-up tables [17], [18]. Fig. 5 indicates
(1)
good modeling accuracy, including accurate capturing of fast
516
Fig. 3. Experimental electronic throttle responses. (a) Large-signal operating
mode. (b) Small-signal operating mode outside the limp-home region. (c) Small-
signal operating mode around the limp-home region.
Fig. 4. Block diagram of the mean value engine model for isothermal
manifold.
temperature transients. The high-frequency oscillations in the
experimental responses are due to combustion pulsations (not
included in the MVEM).
Possibly different heat transfer characteristics of plenum and
runners can be taken into account by developing a more complex
polytropic manifold model consisting of separate lumped sub-
models for plenum and runners. Rewriting a pair of p–T state
equations (1) to two pairs of state equations for the plenum vol-
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2006
Fig. 5. Validation results for the two-state polytropic manifold model.
Fig. 6. Validation results for the three-state polytropic model with and without
the backflow effect.
ume and the equivalent runner volume (pp –Tp , pr –Tr ), applying
the obvious boundary conditions on air-mass flows, and neglect-
ing the pressure drop across the manifold (pp ≈ pr ) leads to a
simple and computationally efficient three-state manifold model
presented in [17]. The effect of backflow from the cylinders to
the runners can be introduced by using the simple substitution
Wo To → Wo To − Wbf Tbf in the three-state model equations,
thus accounting for the backflow enthalpy [17]. Fig. 6 illustrates
that using the three-state model with backflow effect yields an
accurate prediction of the runner temperature response.
One of the main applications of the presented model is the
estimation (and prediction) of the port air-mass flow Wo for
the purpose of air–fuel ratio feedforward control [15] and en-
gine torque estimation [10]. According to the analysis of the
linearized manifold model given in [19] and [20], the pressure
response p is 40% faster for the adiabatic than the isothermal
manifold, while the throttle flow Wi and the port flow Wo re-
sponses are similar for both the models. Consequently, the tra-
ditional port flow estimation and prediction algorithms based
on the isothermal model would be inaccurate for the adiabatic
manifold if the estimator utilizes the pressure measurement sig-
nal, and would be rather insensitive to manifold modeling errors
if the throttle flow measurement signal is used [20].
DEUR et al.: RECENT ADVANCES IN CONTROL-ORIENTED MODELING OF AUTOMOTIVE POWER TRAIN DYNAMICS
Fig. 7. Dynamic torque converter model. (a) Block diagram. (b) Bond graph.
(c) Equivalent mechanical system.
V. TORQUE CONVERTER
The torque converter is usually modeled by using the
well-known capacity factor/torque ratio versus speed ratio
√
steady-state curves ωi / τi = f1 (ωt /ωi ) and τt /τi = f2 (ωt /ωi )
(cf. Fig. 1). These curves can be given in the form of look-up
tables, or described by appropriate physical or empirical alge-
braic equations [21], [22]. Such a static torque converter model
has been proven to be adequate in the frequency range of 10–20
Hz (at the idle speed region). However, the higher frequency
range may be of interest for analyses of disturbance/vibration
damping, and for simulation, estimation, and control of high-
frequency and NVH-related power train dynamics during throt-
tle steps and gear shifts. In this high-frequency range, the torque
converter dynamics due to the fluid and stator dynamic effects
should be considered.
A dynamic torque converter model for operations below the
coupling point (ωt /ωi < ≈ 0.85, the stator is locked) has been
proposed in [23]. The model has been extended for operations
above the coupling point (including the coast drive mode) in
[24]. The model from [24] is shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b) in the
form of a block diagram and a bond graph [25], respectively.
The switching logic in Fig. 7(a) corresponds to the description
of the stator one-way clutch.
As a basic model simplification, it may be assumed that: 1)
the stator dynamics is negligible(Is → 0, Ss ≈ 0; or operations
517
Fig. 8. Block diagrams of the linearized torque converter models. (a) Simpli-
fied second-order model. (b) Simplified third-order model.
below the coupling point) and 2) the flow cross-coupling accel-
eration terms are negligible (Si,t,s ≈ 0) [24], [26]. According to
the bond graph analysis in [24], the simplified third-order model
may be represented by an equivalent mechanical system with
impeller and turbine inertias, two continuously variable trans-
missions, and a spring-damper in-series combination [Fig. 7(c)].
If it is additionally assumed that the fluid inertia effect is neg-
ligible (Lf → 0), the simple second-order model is obtained.
This model is usually called the static torque converter model
(see Section IV), assuming that the impeller and turbine inertias
Ii and It are lumped to the “external” engine and input trans-
mission inertias, respectively. The static model is defined by
the nonlinear functions f0 in Fig. 7(a) and additional nonlinear
functions for fluid velocity V and stator speed ωs , which are
related to the expressions ϕRHS = 0 and τs0 = 0 [26].
The second- and third-order models have been linearized and
analyzed in [26]. It has been found that the structures of the
linearized models can be significantly simplified based on as-
sumptions that are valid for the particular torque converter (and
apparently for other torque converters). The block diagrams of
the simplified models are shown in Fig. 8. The second-order
model is of aperiodic lag type, or of integral–lag type [as shown
in Fig. 8(a)] if the low-frequency aperiodic dynamics is ne-
glected or if the torque converter operates above the coupling
point. The model parameters depend on the operating point
(speed ratio ωt /ωi ), and they can be readily calculated from
the inertia parameters Ii and It , and gradients of the torque
converter static curves [26].
The third-order linearized model includes one more
parameter—the time constant Tv related to the fluid inertia ef-
fect. If Tp > 2Tv , the third-order model in Fig. 8(b) may be
518
Fig. 9. Schematic of the wet clutch.
regarded as the second-order model in Fig. 8(a) extended with
the parasitic term 1/(Tv s + 1) in the cross-coupling paths. How-
ever, if Tp < 2Tv , the emphasized resonance effect occurs, i.e.,
weakly damped oscillations appear in the model response. This
becomes the case for operations above the coupling point [26].
The resonance frequency, given in radians per second, was found
to be 0.6ωi . It should be noted that the structure of the third-
order torque converter model in Fig. 8(b) corresponds to the
well-known structure of a two-mass elastic system [27]. This is
not a surprising result, taking into account the representation of
torque converter dynamics, as shown in Fig. 7(c) [24].
The linearized models have been used in [26] to plot the
torque converter frequency responses. The frequency responses
show that the torque converter effectively attenuates the high-
frequency vibrations transferred from the impeller to the turbine
side, and vice versa. The fluid inertia effect increases the atten-
uation capability for normalized frequencies greater than 0.8–2
pulses per impeller revolution. However, the attenuation of im-
peller torque-to-impeller speed and turbine torque-to-turbine
speed high-frequency vibrations is smaller than that in the
converter-less transmission, due to the effect of the decoupled
impeller and turbine inertia by means of a fluid.
VI. WET CLUTCH
Various control-oriented transmission models usually utilize a
static model for wet clutches (see, e.g., [3]). In the static model,
the clutch torque T is proportional to the applied hydraulic
pressure papp and the clutch friction coefficient µ (Fig. 9) as
T = Nf Ap papp µ (ω, papp , ϑ)re sgn ω (4)
where Nf is the number of active friction surfaces (Nf = 1 in
Fig. 9), Ap = Fapp /papp is the piston area, ω is the relative
clutch speed (slip), ϑ is the clutch fluid temperature, and re =
2(b3 − a3 )/[3(b2 − a2 )] is the equivalent radius of the clutch
disc.
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2006
The experimental model validation results in Fig. 10 [28] il-
lustrate that the static friction model can provide a relatively
good description of the wet clutch engagement dynamics only
for high initial clutch slip speeds and high rates of change of
applied pressure (high energy engagements). However, it can-
not capture a relatively large clutch torque delay for low-slip
engagement and a torque response overshoot for high-slip or
low-pressure rate engagements.
The inaccuracy of the static clutch model (4) is predominantly
caused by the fact that this model does not include a description
of the squeeze fluid film dynamics that is characteristic for wet
clutches. The fluid dynamics is described by a system of the
Reynolds partial differential equation and the force balance
equation [29], [30]. Under certain assumptions [28]–[31] that
are valid for ungrooved clutch (wg = 0 in Fig. 9), the original
distributed-parameter model may be transformed into the
following lumped-parameter model:
  
dh 1 12Φd
= ν(ṗapp , ω0 ) φ(h) 1 + 3ηBJ (h) +
dt g(h) h3
 
Ng θ 0 h3
× Fapp − Apc (h) (5)
2π 12ηQ
b3 − a3
T = T c + T v = Nf N g θ 0 µpc sgn(ω)
3
b4 − a4 φf − φfs
+ Nf N g θ 0 ηω (6)
4 h
where h is the fluid film thickness; Φ is the friction material
permeability; A is the effective clutch disc area; η is the fluid vis-
cosity; Tc and Tv are the contact and viscous friction torques,
respectively; and g(h), φ(h), φf (h), φfs (h), ηBJ (h), pc (h),
and Q(a, b) are the characteristic model functions defined
in [28]–[31].
The empirical scaling factor ν(dpapp /dt) in the squeeze-
speed state equation has been proposed in [28], in order to
increase the modeling accuracy. The scaling factor has been
numerically optimized based on the experimental data. The op-
timization results for ungrooved clutch are shown in Fig. 11.
The experimental validation results in Fig. 10 indicate very
good accuracy of the extended model for a wide range of op-
erating parameters. The validation results are somewhat worse
for grooved clutch [28].
It is further demonstrated in [28] that the empirical scaling
factor for ungrooved cutch would not be needed (ν ≈ 1) if the
clutch model is extended with the actuator dynamics (includ-
ing the actuator friction dynamics). However, variations of the
scaling factor in the case of grooved clutch are much larger
(ν ∈ [0.5, 2.5], [28]), so that they cannot be explained by the
actuator dynamics alone.
In order to try to improve the grooved-clutch model with-
out using the empirical scaling factor, an exact treatment of
a lumped-parameter clutch hydrodynamics has been presented
in [28]. It is shown therein that the model (5) (with ν = 1)
predicts an inconsistent squeeze speed for a realistic automo-
tive clutch with a large number of grooves. Unfortunately, the
developed grooved-clutch physical model still cannot explain
DEUR et al.: RECENT ADVANCES IN CONTROL-ORIENTED MODELING OF AUTOMOTIVE POWER TRAIN DYNAMICS
Fig. 10. Results of the experimental validation of the static and dynamic models for ungrooved clutch. Operating parameters: initial engagement speed (slip)
(r/min), pressure rise time (s), fluid temperature (◦ C).
Fig. 11. Squeeze-speed scaling factor for the ungrooved clutch.
the experimentally observed pressure rate-dependence of the
squeeze speed (included in the empirical factor ν), and will
require further studies.
VII. AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
Control-oriented power train models typically include only
dominant transmission dynamic modes such as gear inertia and
half-shaft compliance, and dominant static effects such as gear
ratio and clutch Coulomb friction [1]–[3]. These models are usu-
ally derived, analyzed, and validated for different transmission
shifts (typically for 1–2 upshift). According to the validation
519
results in [32], they cannot capture some important charac-
teristics of the experimentally observed power train behavior
for park/reverse and park/drive engagements. The main issue
was that the model response for the half-shaft torque included
weakly damped oscillations in the final response phase, while
the experimental response was well damped.
In order to improve the modeling accuracy, the basic trans-
mission model from [32] is extended in [33] with some of the
neglected, mostly nonlinear effects such as transmission com-
ponent friction and backlash, clutch drag, and engine block
dynamics.
Fig. 13 shows the bond graph of the extended model for a
four-speed automatic transmission1 whose schematic is given
in Fig. 12. The core of the model is the basic gear set submodel
given between the bonds X and Y in Fig. 13. This submodel
consists of the inertia elements I, the gear ratio transformers
TF, and the clutch friction resistance elements R. One of the
main advantages of the bond graph modeling method is that it
is a simple and systematic way of dealing with redundant state
variables by means of applying the causality rules [25]. For the
particular case of gear set submodel, two of the possible six state
variables are redundant (the speeds ωs2 and ωr1c2 ). The model
1 Note that the brake-on case is considered (Fig. 1). In the brake-off case,
the model needs to be extended by wheel inertia–tire friction–vehicle mass
model [1], [2], [32].
520 IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2006

Fig. 12. Schematic of the gear set.

Fig. 14. Results of the experimental validation of the automatic transmission

model for park/reverse engagement.

As proposed in [32] and [34], the gear set clutch friction

model is based on the Karnopp friction model. The main advan-
tage of this approach is a superior computing efficiency when
compared to other possible, static and dynamic friction mod-
els. A disadvantage is the complexity of the model structure,
but, nevertheless, the model derivation and implementation is
straightforward.
After extending the gear set–half-shaft compliance submodel,
a very good agreement between simulation and experimental re-
sponses has been observed (Fig. 14). The main model extensions
Fig. 13. Bond graph model of automatic transmission. include [33] (Fig. 13) the following:
1) transmission backlash 2αb , in order to reproduce high-
state equations are [32] amplitude half-shaft torque oscillations during the clutch
 
ω̇s1 engagement phase (time interval [0.8, 1] in Fig. 14);
A = B [ τrc τlrc τfc τbc τdc τs ]T (7) 2) transmission friction τft and τfs , which damp the torque
ω̇s
response during the final engagement phase for the brake-
1
ω̇t = (τt − τfc − τrc − τdc ) (8) on case;
It 3) Stribeck friction of the clutch model, which causes an
1 abrupt torque growth at the end of the clutch engagement
ω̇eb = (τlrc + τbc − τe − τdiff − τeb0 ) (9) phase (at t ≈ 1.15 s);
Ieb0
4) clutch drag (torque at zero clutch pressure), which pro-
where the constant-parameter matrices A and B are defined
vides prediction of initial torque offset (at t < 0.75 s), and
in [32], and the engine mount torque is given by
gives consistent response in the presence of transmission
backlash.
τeb0 = beb ωeb + keb ωeb dt. (10)
In order to preserve the simple control-oriented model struc-
The redundant states are calculated as ture, the proposed extensions are given in “lumped” forms (only
   1+g 1+g +h    a single backlash element αb and only a pair of transmission
ωs2 − h h ωs1 friction elements Rft and Rfs ).
= . (11)
ωr1c2 − h1 1+h
h
ωs
The only nonlinearity in the gear set submodel (7)–(11) relates VIII. TIRE
to the clutch friction
The tire friction is traditionally modeled by utilizing a static
[τrc τlrc τfc τbc τdc ] = f ([ωrc ωlrc ωfc ωbc ωdc ]) model, which can be described by brush model expressions [35]
or empirical formulae (e.g., “magic” formulae [36]). The recent
= f ([ωt − ωs2 ωr1c2 − ωeb ωt − ωs1 ωs2 − ωeb ωt − ωr1c2 ]).
interest in modeling the tire friction dynamics has been mo-
(12) tivated by the need for precise and computationally efficient
DEUR et al.: RECENT ADVANCES IN CONTROL-ORIENTED MODELING OF AUTOMOTIVE POWER TRAIN DYNAMICS 521

Fig. 15. Brush representation of the longitudinal tire dynamics.

simulations for high-performance vehicle dynamics systems

operating at a wide range of vehicle speeds (including zero
speed) [37], [38]. The brush model from [37] captures im-
portant aspects of the tire friction dynamics, but has a com-
plex distributed-parameter form with a large number of inter-
Fig. 16. Static curves of the LuGre model and the “magic” formula model for
nal states. A more pragmatic tire friction modeling approach different normal forces Fz and braking operating mode.
has led to the relaxation length-based model [38], which may
be regarded as a semiempirical quasi-static lumped-parameter
model. Based on the definition of an average deflection state
More recently, a brush-type longitudinal tire dynamics model
L
has been developed based on the LuGre friction model [39]. ∆ 1
The model accounts for the friction effects in a more precise z̃(t) = z(ζ, t) dζ (16)
L 0
way than in [37],2 and can have a one-state lumped parameter
form similar to [38]. The model has been modified in [40] to the distributed-parameter model, (13) and (14), may be approx-
obtain consistent static and dynamic model forms, and then imately transformed to its lumped-parameter counterpart
extended in [41] and [42] for combined longitudinal and lateral
motion including calculation of self-aligning torque [a three-  
dz̃ σ0 |vr | κ
dimensional (3-D) model]. The overall model developments, = vr − + r |ω| z̃ (17)
dt g(vr ) L
including validation, are presented in [43].
Fig. 15 shows the brush representation of the longitudinal F = σ0 z̃ + σ1 z̃˙ + σ2 vr . (18)
tire tread dynamics. It is assumed that the tire–road contact is
realized through a lot of tiny, massless, and elastic elements
The coefficient κ in (17) may be set to the constant value of
(so-called bristles) attached to a circular belt [35]. The process
1.2. Alternatively, it can be calculated as
of horizontal bristle deflection z and the related generation of
the tire force F is described by the following equations: 1 − e−L /Z
κ=  (19)
∂z(ζ, t) σ0 |vr | ∂z(ζ, t) 1 − LZ 1 − e−L /Z
= vr − z − r|ω| (13)
∂t g(vr ) ∂ζ in order to provide the same steady-state behavior of the dis-
L 
1 ∂z(ζ, t) tributed and lumped models.
F (t) = σ0 z(ζ, t) + σ1 + σ2 vr dζ (14) Fig. 16 shows the static model validation results for different
L 0 ∂t
normal forces Fz [43]. The “magic” formula model from [36]
where vr = rω − v is the slip speed, g(vr ) is a positive general- has been taken as an “ideal” benchmark for validation, since
ized Stribeck curve for the stick-slip friction, σ0 and σ1 are the it accurately captures the experimentally obtained tire static
horizontal stiffness and damping coefficients of the tire tread, curves. Fig. 16 indicates a very good static accuracy of the
and σ2 is the viscous friction coefficient. LuGre model. The validation results for the 3-D model are
The model has the following simple analytical solution for shown in [43].
the steady-state conditions: The LuGre tire friction model has been recently extended
  with some secondary, but potentially important effects such as
Z

F = sgn (vr )g(vr ) 1 − 1 − e−L /Z + σ2 vr , camber, carcass compliance, rolling resistance, conicity, and
L ply-steer [44], [45].
 
 rω  g(vr ) Test vehicle experiments for abrupt wide open throttle tran-
Z =   . (15)
vr σ 0
2 The tire tread stress–strain curve is described in the LuGre model by a
nonlinear, hysteretic curve, which is more realistic than the saturated linear
curve that is commonly used in the traditional brush models.
sients on the ice surface have pointed out that the tire can trans-
fer significantly larger force when compared with the maximum
value of the tire static curve [46], [47]. A detailed experimental
analysis of the effect is presented in [48], and an appropriate
extension of the LuGre model is proposed in [49].
522
IX. CONCLUSION
The presented modeling, analysis, and validation results have
shown that some of usually neglected dynamic effects can have
a significant influence on the accuracy of the automotive power
train models for specific operating modes and modeling tasks.
These effects include the following.
1) Electronic throttle delay may be described by a linear first-
order lag term, provided that the control strategy effectively
linearizes the nonlinear electronic throttle body dynamics.
2) Manifold air temperature transients affect the accuracy of
the cylinder air charge estimation/prediction based on manifold
pressure measurement.
3) Torque converter fluid dynamics modeling is important for
vibration attenuation analysis and wide frequency range simu-
lations. The fluid dynamics may cause an oscillatory mode for
operations above the coupling point.
4) Wet clutch fluid dynamics significantly affects the accu-
racy of clutch torque response for low-/medium-energy clutch
engagements.
5) Transmission friction and backlash, low-speed clutch
friction, and clutch drag have a substantial influence on the
park/reverse and park/drive engagement modeling accuracy.
6) Tire friction dynamics modeling provides computationally
efficient simulations for a wide vehicle speed range, and in-
creases the model fidelity in the high-frequency range. Using a
hysteretic stress–strain curve for the tire tread, as incorporated
in the LuGre model, increases the accuracy of the tire static
curves.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to express their gratitude toward
Dr. B. Tobler from the Ford Research and Advanced Engi-
neering for constructive and very helpful discussions, and data
support.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Hrovat and W. E. Tobler, “Bond graph modeling of automotive power
trains,” J. Franklin Inst., vol. 328, pp. 623–662, 1991.
[2] D. Hrovat, J. Asgari, and M. G. Fodor, “Automotive mechatronics sys-
tems,” in Mechatronics Systems, Techniques and Applications, C. T.
Leondes, Ed. New York: Gordon and Breach, 2000, pp. 1–98.
[3] D. Cho and K. J. Hedrick, “Automotive powertrain modeling for control,”
Trans. ASME, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 111, pp. 568–576, 1989.
[4] H. Heisler, Advanced Vehicle Technology, 2nd ed. Warrendale, PA: SAE,
2002.
[5] D. Pavković, J. Deur, M. Jansz, and N. Perić. (2003). Experimental identi-
fication of electronic throttle body. Presented at the 10th Eur. Conf. Power
Electron. Appl., Toulouse, France [CD-ROM].
[6] J. Deur, D. Pavković, N. Perić, M. Jansz, and D. Hrovat, “An electronic
throttle control strategy including compensation of friction and limp-home
effects,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 821–834, May–Jun.
2004.
[7] J. Deur, D. Pavković, N. Perić, and M. Jansz. (2002). Analysis and opti-
mization of an electronic throttle for linear operating modes. Presented at
the 10th Int. Power Electron. Motion Control Conf., Dubrovnik-Cavtat,
Croatia [CD-ROM].
[8] D. Pavković, J. Deur, M. Jansz, and N. Perić, “Adaptive control of au-
tomotive electronic throttle,” Control Eng. Pract., vol. 14, pp. 121–136,
2006.
[9] J. Deur, V. Ivanović, D. Pavković, and M. Jansz, “Identification and speed
control of SI engine for idle operating mode,” SAE Paper 2004-01-0898,
2004.
IEEE/ASME TRANSACTIONS ON MECHATRONICS, VOL. 11, NO. 5, OCTOBER 2006
[10] D. Pavković, J. Deur, V. Ivanović, and D. Hrovat, “SI engine load torque
estimator based on adaptive Kalman filter and its application to idle speed
control,” SAE Paper 2005-01-0036, 2005.
[11] B. K. Powell, “A dynamic model for automotive engine control analysis,”
in Proc. 18th IEEE Conf. Decision Control, 1979, pp. 120–126.
[12] E. Hendricks, A. Chavalier, M. Jensen, S. C. Sorenson, D. Trumpy, and
J. Asik, “Modeling of the intake manifold filling dynamics,” SAE Paper
960037, 1996.
[13] M. Fons, M. Muller, A. Chevalier, C. Vigild, E. Hendricks, and
S. C. Sorenson, “Mean value engine modeling of an SI engine with EGR,”
SAE Paper 1999-01-0909, 1999.
[14] M. Jankovic and S. W. Magner, “Cylinder air-charge estimation for ad-
vanced intake valve operation in variable cam timing engines,” JSAE Rev.,
vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 445–452, Oct. 2001.
[15] A. Chevalier, C. Vigild, and E. Hendricks, “Predicting the port air mass
flow of SI engines in air/fuel ratio control applications,” SAE Paper 2000-
01-0260, 2000.
[16] D. Hrovat, “Mean value engine models,” private communication, 1989–
1990.
[17] J. Deur, D. Hrovat, J. Petrić, and Ž. Šitum. (2003). A control-oriented
polytropic model of SI engine intake manifold. Presented at the ASME
Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo., Washington, DC, vol 2 [CD-ROM].
[18] J. Petrić, J. Deur, D. Pavković, I. Mahalec, and Z. Herold, “Experimental
setup for SI-engine modeling and control research,” Strojarstvo, vol. 46,
no. 1–3, pp. 39–50, 2004.
[19] J. Deur, D. Hrovat, and J. Asgari, “Analysis of mean value engine model
with emphasis on intake manifold thermal effects,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. Control Appl., Istanbul, Turkey, 2003, vol. 1, pp. 161–166.
[20] J. Deur, S. W. Magner, M. Jankovic, and D. Hrovat. (2004). Influence of in-
take manifold heat transfer effects on accuracy of SI engine air charge pre-
diction, Presented at the ASME Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo., Anaheim,
CA, vol. 2 [CD-ROM].
[21] G. G. Lucas and A. Rayner, “Torque converter design calculations,” Au-
tomob. Eng., pp. 56–60, 1970.
[22] A. Kotwicki, “Dynamic models for torque converter equipped vehicles,”
SAE Paper 820393, 1982.
[23] T. Ishihara and R. Emori, “Torque converter as a vibration damper and its
transient characteristics,” SAE Paper 660368, 1966.
[24] D. Hrovat and W. E. Tobler, “Bond graph modeling and computer simula-
tion of automotive torque converter,” J. Franklin Inst., vol. 319, no. 1–2,
pp. 93–114, 1985.
[25] D. C. Karnopp, D. L. Margolis, and R. Rosenberg, System Dynamics—A
Unified Approach. New York: Wiley, 1990.
[26] J. Deur, D. Hrovat, and J. Asgari. (2002). Analysis of torque converter
dynamics. Presented at the ASME Int. Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo., New
Orleans, LA, vol. 2 [CD-ROM].
[27] J. Deur and N. Perić, “Analysis of speed control system for electrical
drives with elastic transmission,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Ind. Electron.,
Bled, Slovenia, Jul.1999, vol. 3, pp. 624–630.
[28] J. Deur, J. Petrić, J. Asgari, and D. Hrovat, “Modeling of wet clutch
engagement including a thorough experimental validation,” SAE Paper
2005-01-0877, 2005.
[29] B. Jacobson, “Engagement of oil immersed multi-disc clutches,” in Proc.
ASME Int. Power Transmiss. Gearing Conf., 1992, vol. 43-2, pp. 567–
574.
[30] S. Natsumeda and T. Miyoshi, “Numerical simulation of engagement
of paper based wet clutch facing,” Trans. ASME, J. Tribol., vol. 116,
pp. 232–237, 1994.
[31] E. J. Berger, F. Sadeghi, and C. M. Krousgrill, “Analytical and numerical
modeling of engagement of rough, permeable, grooved wet clutches,”
Trans. ASME, J. Tribol., vol. 119, pp. 143–148, 1997.
[32] J. Deur, J. Asgari, D. Hrovat, and P. Kovač, “Modeling and anal-
ysis of automatic transmission engagement dynamics—Linear case,”
Trans. ASME., J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 128, pp. 263–277, Jun.
2006.
[33] J. Deur, J. Asgari, and D. Hrovat, “Modeling and analysis of automatic
transmission engagement dynamics—Nonlinear case including valida-
tion,” Trans. ASME, J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control, vol. 128, pp. 251–262,
Jun. 2006.
[34] . (2003). Modeling of an automotive planetary gear set based on
Karnopp model for clutch friction. Presented at the ASME Int. Mech.
Eng. Congr. Expo., Washington, DC, vol. 2 [CD-ROM].
[35] H. B. Pacejka and R. S. Sharp, “Shear force development by pneumatic
tyres in steady state conditions: A review of modelling aspects,” Vehicle
Syst. Dyn., vol. 20, pp. 121–176, 1991.
DEUR et al.: RECENT ADVANCES IN CONTROL-ORIENTED MODELING OF AUTOMOTIVE POWER TRAIN DYNAMICS 523

[36] E. Bakker, L. Nyborg, and H. B. Pacejka, “Tyre modelling for use in
vehicle dynamics studies,” SAE Paper 870421, 1987.
[37] A. van Zanten, W. D. Ruf, and A. Lutz, “Measurement and simulation of
transient tire forces,” SAE Paper 890640, 1989.
[38] J. E. Bernard and C. L. Clover, “Tire modeling for low-speed and high-
speed calculations,” SAE Paper 950311, 1995.
[39] C. Canudas de Wit and P. Tsiotras, “Dynamic tire friction models for
vehicle traction control,” in Proc. 38th IEEE Conf. Decision Control,
Phoenix, AZ, 1999, pp. 3746–3751.
[40] J. Deur, “Modeling and analysis of longitudinal tire dynamics based on the
LuGre friction model,” in Proc. 3rd IFAC Workshop Advances Automotive
Control, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2001, pp. 101–106.
[41] J. Deur, J. Asgari, and D. Hrovat. (2001). A dynamic tire friction model
for combined longitudinal and lateral motion. Presented at the ASME Int.
Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo., New York, NY, vol. 2 [CD-ROM].
[42] J. Deur. (2002). A brush-type dynamic tire friction model for non-uniform
normal pressure distribution. Presented at the 15th IFAC World Congr.,
Barcelona, Spain [CD-ROM].
[43] J. Deur, J. Asgari, and D. Hrovat, “A 3D brush-type dynamic tire friction
model,” Vehicle Syst. Dyn., vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 133–173, 2004.
[44] J. Deur, V. Ivanović, M. Troulis, C. Miano, D. Hrovat, and J. Asgari,
“Extensions of LuGre tire friction model related to variable slip speed
along contact patch length,” in Proc. 3rd IAVSD Int. Tyre Colloq. Tyre
Models Vehicle Dyn. Anal., Vienna, Austria, 2004, p. 32.
[45] , “Extensions of LuGre tire friction model related to variable slip
speed along contact patch length,” Vehicle Syst. Dyn., vol. 43, pp. 508–
524, 2005.
[46] J. Deur, V. Ivanović, D. Pavković, D. Hrovat, J. Asgari, M. Troulis, and
C. Miano, “Experimental analysis and modeling of longitudinal tire fric-
tion dynamics for abrupt transients,” in Proc. 3rd IAVSD Int. Tyre Colloq.
Tyre Models Vehicle Dyn. Anal., Vienna, Austria, 2004, p. 33.
[47] , “Experimental analysis and modeling of longitudinal tire friction
dynamics for abrupt transients,” Vehicle Syst. Dyn., vol. 43, pp. 525–539,
2005.
[48] V. Ivanović, J. Deur, M. Kostelac, Z. Herold, M. Troulis, C. Miano,
D. Hrovat, J. Asgari, D. Higgins, J. Blackford, and V. Koutsos, “Exper-
imental identification of dynamic tire friction potential on ice surfaces,”
presented at the XIX IAVSD Symp., Milan, Italy, 2005.
[49] V. Ivanović, J. Deur, J. Asgari, D. Hrovat, and O. Hofmann, “Modeling of
dynamic tire friction potential on ice surfaces,” in Proc. 2006 ASME Int.
Mech. Eng. Congr. Expo., Chicago, IL, to be published.
Joško Petrić received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees, all in mechanical en-
gineering, from the University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, in 1987, 1991, and
1994, respectively.
He is currently an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Mechanical Engi-
neering and Naval Architecture at the University of Zagreb. His areas of teaching
include automatic control, mechatronics, robotics, and fluid power. His current
research interests include modeling and control of automotive systems.
Dr. Petrić is a member of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
Jahan Asgari received the B.Sc. degree from California State University, Sacra-
mento, in 1983, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of California,
Davis, in 1985 and 1989, respectively, all in mechanical engineering.
Currently, he is with Ford Research and Advanced Engineering, Dearborn,
MI, where he is engaged in several projects on driveline, and chassis modeling
and control.
Davor Hrovat (S’77–M’79–SM’91) received the
B.Sc. (Dipl. Ing.) degree from the University of
Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, in 1972, and the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees from the University of California,
Davis, in 1976 and 1979, respectively, all in mechan-
ical engineering.
Since 1981, he has been with the Ford Research
and Advanced Engineering, Dearborn, MI, where he
is currently a Corporate Technical Specialist, coor-
dinating and leading research efforts on various as-
pects of vehicle/power train control systems. He is
the holder of more than 50 patents.
Dr. Hrovat is a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
He has recently been elected to the National Academy of Engineering. He has
served on the Editorial Boards of a number of ASME and IEEE journals, and is
currently an Editor of the IFAC journals Control Engineering Practice, Interna-
tional Journal of Vehicle Autonomous Systems, and Vehicle System Dynamics.
He was the recipient of the 1996 ASME/Dynamic Systems and Control Innova-
tive Practice Award and the 1999 AACC Control Engineering Practice Award.

Joško Deur (M’02) received the B.S., M.S., and the

Ph.D. degrees, all in electrical engineering, from the
University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, in 1989, 1993,
and 1999, respectively.
In 1990, he joined the Faculty of Mechanical En-
gineering and Naval Architecture, University of Za-
greb, as an Assistant, where he has been an Assistant
Professor since 2002. In 2000, he was a Postdoctoral
Visiting Scholar with the Ford Research Laboratory,
Dearborn, MI, where he was engaged in research on
different aspects of automotive system dynamics and
control. His current research interests include modeling and control of dynamic
systems with emphasis on the automotive systems and servo drives.