5th IFAC Conference on

5th IFAC Conference on

Engine
5th IFACand Powertrain
Conference onControl, Simulation and Modeling
Engine and Powertrain Control, Simulation and Modeling
Available
Changchun,
Engine
5th IFACand China, September
onControl,20-22,
Powertrain
Conference 2018 and online
Simulation at www.sciencedirect.com
Modeling
Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018
Changchun,
Engine China, September
and Powertrain Control,20-22, 2018 and Modeling
Simulation
Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018
ScienceDirect
IFAC PapersOnLine 51-31 (2018) 846–853
Energy-Optimal
Energy-Optimal Adaptive
Adaptive Cruise
Cruise Control
Control
Energy-Optimal
in Time Adaptive
Domain Cruise
based on Control
Energy-Optimal
in Time Adaptivebased
Domain Cruiseon Control
in TimePredictive
Model Domain based Controlon
in Time Domain based
Model on
Model Predictive
Predictive Control
Control
Model
Yanzhao Predictive
Jia ∗∗ Tomohiro Saito ∗∗Control
Yutaro Itoh ∗∗∗
∗∗∗
Yanzhao Jia ∗∗ Tomohiro ∗∗ Saito ∗∗ Yutaro Itoh ∗∗ ∗∗∗
∗∗∗
Yanzhao
Yernar Jia Tomohiro ∗∗ Saito Yutaro Itoh
Yernar Nukezhanov
Nukezhanov
∗ ∗∗
Daniel
Daniel ∗
Görges
Görges ∗∗
∗∗
∗∗ ∗∗∗
Yanzhao
Yernar Tomohiro ∗∗
JiaNukezhanov SaitoDaniel Yutaro
Görges Itoh
∗∗
∗
∗ DENSO AUTOMOTIVEYernar Nukezhanov Deutschland Daniel
GmbH, Aachen∗∗Engineering
Görges
∗ DENSO AUTOMOTIVE Deutschland GmbH, Aachen Engineering
∗
DENSO Centre, Wegberg, Germany
AUTOMOTIVE (e-mail:GmbH,
Deutschland y.jia@denso-auto.de)
Aachen Engineering
∗ ∗∗ Centre, Wegberg, Germany (e-mail: y.jia@denso-auto.de)
∗∗ Juniorprofessorship
DENSO AUTOMOTIVE
Centre, Wegberg, for
Germany Electromobility,
Deutschland
(e-mail: GmbH, Technical
Aachen
y.jia@denso-auto.de) University
Engineering of
∗∗ Juniorprofessorship
∗∗
Juniorprofessorship
Kaiserslautern,
Centre, Wegberg,
for Electromobility, Technical
for Electromobility,
Germany
Germany (e-mail:
(e-mail: goerges@eit.uni-kl.de)
y.jia@denso-auto.de)
University
Technical University of
of
∗∗ Kaiserslautern,
∗∗∗ Germany (e-mail: goerges@eit.uni-kl.de)
∗∗∗ DENSO
Juniorprofessorship
Kaiserslautern, CORPORATION,
for Electromobility,
Germany Kariya,
Technical
(e-mail: goerges@eit.uni-kl.de) Japan University of
∗∗∗ DENSO CORPORATION, Kariya, Japan
∗∗∗
Kaiserslautern,
DENSO (yuutarou
Germany
CORPORATION,itou@denso.co.jp)
(e-mail:
(yuutarou itou@denso.co.jp) goerges@eit.uni-kl.de)
Kariya, Japan
∗∗∗ (yuutarou itou@denso.co.jp)
DENSO CORPORATION, Kariya, Japan
(yuutarou itou@denso.co.jp)
Abstract: This
Abstract: This paper
paper presents
presents aa novelnovel energy-optimal
energy-optimal adaptive adaptive cruise cruise control
control (EACC)
(EACC) strategystrategy
based
Abstract: on model
This predictive
paper control
presents a (MPC).
novel The
energy-optimalEACC has three
adaptive
based on model predictive control (MPC). The EACC has three main objectives: a) reduce the main
cruise objectives:
control (EACC)a) reduce
strategythe
based
real
Abstract: on model
driving fuel
This predictive
consumption
paper control
presents of
a (MPC).
the
novel The EACC
controlled
energy-optimal car; b) hasthe three
adaptive main control
controlled
cruise objectives:
car has a) reduce
good
(EACC) ability
strategythe
of
real driving fuel consumption of the controlled car; b) the controlled car has good ability of
tracking
based
real on
driving its preceding
model
fuel car;
predictive
consumption c) the
control
of controlled
(MPC).
the The
controlled car strictly
EACC
car; b) haskeeps
the
tracking its preceding car; c) the controlled car strictly keeps the minimum safety distance tothree the main
controlled minimum
objectives:
car hassafety a)
good distance
reduce
ability to
the
of
its preceding
real preceding
driving
tracking
its car. consumption
fuel
its preceding
car. For this
For this multi-objective
of the
car;multi-objective
c) the controlled optimal
controlled car;control,
car strictly
optimal b) the
control, it is
keeps
it is important
controlled
the
importantminimum tohas
carto build good
safety
build updistance
up aaability
suitable
suitable of
to
problem
tracking
its precedingformulation
its preceding
car. For to describe
car;
this c) the various
controlled
multi-objective controlcar
optimal targets
strictly
control, properly.
keeps
it
problem formulation to describe various control targets properly. In this paper, three different is the In
important this
minimum paper,
to three
safety
build up different
distance
a suitable to
problem
methods
its precedingformulation
of problem
problem to describe
formulation
car. For formulation
this various control
for MPC-based
multi-objective MPC-basedoptimaltargets
EACC
control, properly.
init time
time In this to
domain
is important paper,
arebuild three
up a different
proposed, deeply
suitable
methods of for EACC in domain are proposed, deeply
analysed
problem
methods and
of compared
formulation
problem to in real
describe
formulation driving
various
for situations.
control
MPC-based In
targets
EACCaddition
properly.
in
analysed and compared in real driving situations. In addition to the importance of the problem to
time the In
domainimportance
this paper,
are of the
three
proposed, problem
different
deeply
formulation,
methods
analysed
formulation, and the
of problem prediction
compared
the prediction information
formulation
in real driving
information such as
for MPC-based
situations.
such as the
theIn future
EACCaddition
future speed
inspeed
time
to theofdomain
of the preceding
are proposed,
importance
the preceding car
ofcar also
thealso has aa
deeply
problem
has
formulation,
considerable
analysed and the prediction
influence
compared onin information
MPC-based
real driving such as
EACC.
situations. theInfuture
Therefore, how
addition speed the
to ofprediction
the the preceding
importance car
information
of thealso has a
affects
problem
considerable influence on MPC-based EACC. Therefore, how the prediction information affects
considerable
the performance
performance
formulation, influence
the of EACCon MPC-based
prediction ininformation EACC.
different driving
driving
such as Therefore,
situations
the future ishow theofprediction
investigated.
speed information
Furthermore,
the Furthermore,
preceding the
carthe affects
impact
alsoimpact
has a
the of EACC in different situations is investigated.
of
the the prediction
considerable
performance ofhorizon’s
influence EACCon inlength
MPC-based
differenton MPC
EACC.
driving
of the prediction horizon’s length on MPC is analysed in this work. is analysed
Therefore,
situations in
is this
how work.
the
investigated. prediction information
Furthermore, the affects
impact
the performance
of the predictionofhorizon’sEACC inlengthdifferent driving
on MPC is situations
analysed in is investigated.
this work. Furthermore, the impact
© the
of 2018,prediction
IFAC (International
horizon’s Federation
length onofMPCAutomatic Control)inHosting
is analysed this work. by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Model Predictive Control, Energy-Optimal
Keywords: Model Predictive Control, Energy-Optimal Adaptive Cruise Adaptive Cruise Control,
Control, Real Real Driving
Driving
Fuel Reduction,
Keywords: Model Problem
Predictive Formulation,
Control, Influence
Energy-Optimal
Fuel Reduction, Problem Formulation, Influence of Prediction Information. of Prediction
Adaptive Information.
Cruise Control, Real Driving
Keywords:
Fuel Reduction, ModelProblem
Predictive Control, Energy-Optimal
Formulation, Influence of Prediction AdaptiveInformation.
Cruise Control, Real Driving
Fuel Reduction,
1. Problem Formulation, Influence car’s
INTRODUCTION of Prediction
speed to Information.
a dynamic driving driving environment
environment for
1. INTRODUCTION car’s speed to a dynamic for better
better
1. INTRODUCTION energy
car’s economy.
speed
energy economy. to a dynamic driving environment for better
1. INTRODUCTION car’s
energy speed to a dynamic driving environment for better
Besideseconomy.
Besides the target
the target of of saving
saving energy,
energy, ecological
ecological speed speed con-
con-
In automotive industry, the topic of connected vehicles energy economy.
In automotive industry, the topic of connected vehicles Besides trol functions
the often
target have
of another
saving two
energy,
trol functions often have another two objectives: a) strictly objectives:
ecological a)
speedstrictly
con-
with
In
with predictiveindustry,
automotive
predictive strategiesthe
strategies is topic
is attracting
attracting more and
of connected
more and more Besides
vehicles
more guarantee
trol thedriving
functions often of
driving
target have
safety;another
saving b)energy,twothe
keep objectives:
trip time
ecological timea) strictly
speed of con-
the
attention.
In
withautomotiveThe industry,
predictive big potential
strategies the of the of
topic
is of real
attracting driving
connected
more and emission
vehicles
more trol guarantee safety; b) keep the trip of the
attention. The big potential the real driving emission guarantee
controlled
functions driving
host car
often safety;
similar
have b)
to
another keep
itstwo the
preceding trip car.
objectives: timea)In oforder
the
strictly
attention.
with andThe
(RDE)predictivefuelbig potential
reduction
strategies ofattracting
the real
isisexpected
expected by driving
utilizing
more emission
and various controlled host car similar to its preceding car. In order
more guarantee
(RDE) and fuel reduction is by utilizing various controlled
to solve
solve thethehostcontrol
driving car safety;
similar b)
problem towith
its multiple
keep preceding
the trip car.
timeInoforder
objectives, two
the
information
attention.
(RDE) and (sensor
The
fuel big data,
potential
reduction Car-to-X
is of the
expected communication,
real
by driving
utilizing emissionroad
various to control problem with multiple objectives, two
information (sensor data, Car-to-X communication, road controlled tomajor
solve categories
the host
control carof optimization
similar
problem to its
with
major categories of optimization approaches were investi- approaches
preceding
multiple were
car.
objectives,Ininvesti-
order
two
topography
(RDE)
information
topography and
and fuel
(sensor
and speed
reduction
speed data,limits,
Car-to-X
limits, etc.) communication,
is expected
etc.) with
with optimal various
by utilizing
optimal control
road to
control gated
major solve in recent
the control
categories years. One approach
of problem approach
optimization is based
with approaches
multiple based on dynamic
objectives,
were dynamictwo
investi-
approaches (Kamal
information
topography (Kamal
(sensor
and speedet al.,
data, 2013;etc.)
Car-to-X
limits, Nakagawa et al.,
communication,
with optimal al., 2016).
2016). road major
control gated in recent years. One is on
approaches et al., 2013; Nakagawa et gated in
programming recent(DP)
categories years.
of One et
(Luu approach
optimization al., 2010; is based
approaches Lin et onal.,
were dynamic
2014)
investi-
approaches (Kamal
topography and speed et al., 2013;etc.)
limits, Nakagawa et al., 2016).
with optimal programming (DP) (Luu et al., 2010; Lin et al., 2014)
control programming
Among different
different application
application domains,
domains, the the ecological driv- driv- gated and the
and the other (DP)
in recent
other is
years.
is model
(Luu
model predictive
Onepredictive
approach
et al., 2010; control
is based (MPC)
etonal.,
Lin (MPC)
control (Luo
dynamic
2014)
(Luo
Among
approaches (Kamal et al., 2013; Nakagawaecological
et al., 2016). et
and al.,
programming
the 2010;
other Stanger
(DP)
is and
(Luu
model del
et Re,
al.,
predictive 2013).
2010; DP
Lin
control is
et
(MPC) a classical
al., 2014)
(Luo
ing assistance
Among
ing assistance
differentsystem (Kamaldomains,
application
system (Kamal et al.,
et al., 2010)
2010) has been
the ecological
has been driv-
pro- et al., 2010; Stanger and del Re, 2013). DP is a classical
pro-
ing
posed
Amongassistance
in recent
differentsystem
years (Kamal
with
application an et al., 2010)
anticipation
domains, the has
of a pro- and
been driv-
significant
ecological etmethod
al.,the
method to
2010;
to find
other
find isaa model
Stanger globally
globally optimal
and predictive
deloptimal
Re, 2013). solution
controlDP (MPC)
solution fora complex
isfor complex
(Luo
classical
posed in recent years with an anticipation of a significant et method
non-linear
al., to control
2010; find
Stanger a problems.
globally
and del optimal
Although
Re, solution
2013). some
DP fora complex
work
is showed
classical
reduction
ing
posed in in
assistance powertrain’s
recent system
years (Kamal
with energy
an et consumption
al., 2010)
anticipation
reduction in powertrain’s energy consumption under real method has
of a under
been real
pro-
significant non-linear control problems. Although some work showed
drivinginconditions.
posed
reduction
driving conditions.
recent With
yearsWith
in powertrain’s the
withthe
energy general
an anticipation concept
consumption
general concept of
of a of
underecologi-
significant
ecologi- aa big
real non-linearbig potential
potential
to control
findofofaimproving
improving fuel
globally optimal
problems. fuel economy
Although
economy solution
someby adopting
by adopting
for complex
work DP,
showed
DP,
driving
reduction conditions.
cal driving,
driving, new
in new With the
functionsenergy
powertrain’s general
of optimal
optimal concept of
vehicle speed
consumption speedecologi-
under con- con- a it is
bighard
non-linear to
potential implement
controlof DP
problems.
improving for
real it is hard to implement DP for on-line control because DP on-line
Although
fuel economy control
someby workbecause
adopting DP
showed
DP,
cal functions of vehicle often
aoften
big requires
potential excessive
of improving computational
fuel economy effort.
by In
adopting contrast,
DP,
cal
trol driving,
appeared,
driving newsuch
conditions. functions
as
With of general
cooperative
the optimal vehicle
adaptive
concept speed
cruise
of con- it
control
ecologi- is hard to implement DP for on-line
requires excessive computational effort. In contrast, control because DP
trol appeared, such as cooperative adaptive cruise control it
(CACC)
cal
trol (Ploeg
driving,
appeared,
(CACC) new
(Ploeg etfunctions
such
et al., 2011;ofAlam
as cooperative
al., 2011; Alam et al.,
optimal al.,
adaptive
et 2015)
vehiclecruise
2015) and
speed
and con- often
look-
control
look-
linear
linear
requires
is hardMPC
MPC with
to with excessive
implement computational
aa quadratic
quadratic
DP cost
forcost function
on-line
function
effort.
controlis
In contrast,
is considerably
considerably
because DP
headappeared,
trol
(CACC) cruise control
(Ploeg such (Hellström
as
et al., cooperative
2011; Alam et adaptive
al.,
et al.,2010; Alam
cruise
2015) and etlook-
control more
often
linear promising
requires
MPC with for
excessive
a on-line control.
computational
quadratic
al., more promising for on-line control. With suitable numer- cost With
function suitable
effort.
is In numer-
contrast,
considerably
head cruise control (Hellström et al., 2010; Alam et al., ical solvers,
solvers,
head
2013).
(CACC) cruise
Althoughcontrol
(Ploeg these
et (Hellström
al., functions
2011; Alamet al.,
haveet 2010;
different
al., 2015)
2013). Although these functions have different names, their more
Alam
names,
and al., linear
etlook-
their more
ical MPC with
promising aa large-scale
large-scale
fora quadratic quadratic
cost function
on-line quadratic
control. Withprogramming
is considerably
suitable
programming (QP)
numer-
(QP)
2013).
key
head Although
purpose
cruise is these
similar.
control functions
All these
(Hellström have
et different
functions
al., aim
2010; names,
at
Alam their
planning
et al., ical
problemsolvers,
can
promising abelarge-scale
solved
for within
on-line quadratic
milliseconds
control. Withprogramming
on
suitable an (QP)
embed-
numer-
key purpose is similar. All these functions aim at planning ical problem can be solved within milliseconds on an embed-
an optimal
key optimal
2013).
purpose speed
Although trajectory
these
is similar. for improving
functions
All these improving
have energy
different
functions aimnames, efficiency problem
ded system can
solvers, be
(Bemporad
a solved
large-scale within
and
their ded system (Bemporad and Patrinos, 2012). However, the
at efficiency
planning milliseconds
Patrinos,
quadratic 2012). on
programming an
However, embed-
the
(QP)
an speed trajectory for energy problem
ded system of
can ecological
be
(Bemporad solved speed
within
and control is
milliseconds
Patrinos, often
2012). inherently
on an
However, not
embed-
the
through
key
an optimal
through exploiting
purpose speed
exploiting various
is similar.
trajectory
various information
All these functions
for improving
information outside
aim at
energy
outside the vehicle.
planning
theefficiency
vehicle. ded problem of ecological speed control is often inherently not
through
The
an newly
optimalexploiting
developed
speed various
trajectory information
ecological
for driving
improving outside
energy
The newly developed ecological driving functions, to dis- problem
theefficiency
functions, vehicle.
to dis- aa simple
simple
problem system linear
of
linear problem
(Bemporad
ecological
problem withcontrol
and
speed
with aa quadratic
quadratic
Patrinos, 2012).
is often cost.
cost. Therefore,
However,
inherently
Therefore,the
not
The newly
tinguish
through developed
themselves
exploiting from ecological
various conventionaldriving
information ACC, functions,
outside which
the to dis- afor
enables
vehicle. forsimple
MPC linear
ofit is problem
essential
ecological with
to
speed find a the
quadratic
control
MPC it is essential to find the most suitable problem most
is often cost.
suitable Therefore,
inherently problem
not
tinguish themselves from conventional ACC, which enables afor MPC linear
formulation,
simple it iswhich
essential
problem to
accurately
withfindadescribes
the most control
quadratic suitable problem
objectives
cost. Therefore,
the host
The
the host
newly
tinguish cardeveloped
car to either
themselves
to eitherfrom drive
ecologicalat aadriving
conventional
drive at pre-set
ACC,
pre-set speed
functions,
which
speed or enables
or simply
to dis- formulation,
simply which accurately describes control objectives
follow
tinguish
the the
host preceding
themselves
car to either fromcar’s behaviour,
conventional
drive at a pre-set can speed
ACC, adjust
which the and
for still
MPC
formulation, keeps
it is the
essential
which optimization
host and still keeps the optimization problem simple.
enables
orthe
simply to
accurately find problem
the most
describes simple.
suitable
control problem
objectives
follow the preceding car’s behaviour, can adjust host
follow
the thecar
host preceding
to eithercar’s drive behaviour,
at a pre-set can speed
adjustorthe host formulation,
simply and still keeps which accurately describes
the optimization problemcontrol simple.objectives
follow the preceding car’s behaviour, can adjust the host and still keeps the optimization problem simple.
2405-8963 © 2018
Copyright 2018, IFAC
IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control)
890 Hosting by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Copyright
Peer review© 2018 IFAC 890 Control.
Copyright © under responsibility of International Federation of Automatic
2018 IFAC 890
10.1016/j.ifacol.2018.10.113
Copyright © 2018 IFAC 890
IFAC E-CoSM 2018
Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018 Yanzhao Jia et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-31 (2018) 846–853 847
In terms of the control domain, MPC-based speed control
can be formulated either in space domain or time domain.
In space domain, control variables change every sample
distance ∆s. The advantage is that all position-dependent
information (e.g., road gradient, road curvature) can be
pre-stored for calculating the optimal speed trajectory,
while non-linearity is the main drawback of control in
space domain. For instance, when one control variable is
the traction force at the wheels Fw and the vehicle speed
v is a state variable, the discrete-time system equation
2 Objec ve 1:
2Fw,i ∆s = mv (vi+1 − vi2 ) is non-linear, where mv is
vehicle mass. Although some work proposed alternative
ways to dodge non-linear problems in space domain, either
considerable effort in the design of control parameters,
such as speed references (Schwickart et al., 2016) or the
affine approximation of the original problem (Johannesson
et al., 2015) is often needed for sub-optimal performance.
In time domain, where control variables vary with time,
linear equations can describe the system dynamics and
control constraints well. Unlike in space domain, exact
road information is unavailable for optimizing the future
speed trajectory because road information is decided by
the vehicle position, while the vehicle’s future position
depends on its future speed trajectory. To find a solution
for this dilemma, the future vehicle position needs to
be estimated before doing speed optimization. Although
such estimation has unavoidable errors, the estimation’s
accuracy is continuously improved with MPC-based ap-
proaches, because the estimation is updated at every new
sampling instant.
Several ideas of the MPC problem formulation in time
domain were proposed in recent work, e.g., in (Schmied
et al., 2015a; Weißmann et al., 2017). Although these
papers indicate a considerable fuel reduction for a car only
with a fixed gear, there is no conclusion on which problem
formulation method works better in which condition, as
no comparison of these methods under the same test
conditions has been made.
The main contribution of this paper is to deeply analyse
the working principles of various problem formulations
and evaluate them in the same daily driving situations.
Furthermore, previous problem formulations are enhanced
in this paper, with considering other criteria, such as driv-
ing comfort and vehicle’s tracking ability. The application
target is extended from a fixed-gear system in previous
work to a car with a multi-speed transmission. For sim-
ulation, the real specification data of a gasoline car in
the B-segment with a 5-speed transmission and its engine
efficiency map are used. In addition to analysing differ-
ent problem formulations, important influencing factors of
MPC-based strategies, such as the prediction information
and the prediction horizon, are also revealed in this paper.
This paper is organized as follows. The objectives of
energy-optimal adaptive cruise control (EACC) are in-
troduced in Section 2. In the same section, the system
dynamics and various designs of EACC are explained. Sub-
sequently, the test environment and comparison of MPC
problem formulations are presented in Section 3. A deeper
analysis of vehicle behaviours and the influence of predic-
tion information are investigated. Finally, conclusions and
remarks on future work are given in Section 4.
891
2. CONTROL OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHES
2.1 Control Objective
Figure 1 shows different control objectives of EACC and
their relationships. Objective 1 is to minimize the energy
consumption of the host car by exploiting the benefit of
a varying inter-vehicle distance within given constraints.
However, if the control only has Objective 1, the host car
Con ict Objec ve 2:
Energy saving for host car Good driving comfort
Con ict
Support
Objec ve 4: Con ict Objec ve 3:
Inter-vehicle distance not too small Inter-vehicle distance not too big
Support
Objec ve 5:
Assured Clear Distance Ahead
Fig. 1. Multiple control objective of EACC
would have no incentive to move fast because less fuel is
consumed when the vehicle speed is lower. When the host
car drives at lower speed, the distance interval between the
host and the preceding car will gradually become larger,
which conflicts with Objective 3. Additionally, Objective 1
and Objective 2 also conflict with each other because
frequent oscillations in the control variables like traction
force could be an optimal solution for fuel minimization, at
the expense of driving comfort. Contrary to Objective 3,
Objective 4 is to avoid too small inter-vehicle distance. The
Objective 4 is helpful for achieving the goal of reducing
fuel consumption of the host car, namely, Objective 1,
because when the inter-vehicle distance is too small and
the preceding car brakes, the host car can do nothing
but apply the same braking to avoid collision, even if the
braking is harmful for fuel economy. The Objective 5 of the
assured clear distance ahead (ACDA) is the lower bound
of the inter-vehicle distance, which is defined by driving
regulations and is a hard control constraint for safety.
Due to the existence of multiple objectives with some
conflicting relations, an appropriate problem formulation
is essential for having the best trade-off, which is explained
in the following subsections.
2.2 Vehicle Dynamics
The discrete-time vehicle dynamics is described by
vp,i + vp,i+1 vh,i + vh,i+1
di+1 = di + ( − )Ts (1a)
2 2
vh,i+1 = vh,i + ah,i Ts (1b)
1
ah,i = (Ft,i − Fb,i − Froll,i − Fg,i − Fair,i ) (1c)
meq
where the inter-vehicle distance, speed of the host car and
preceding car are denoted as d, vh and vp . The variable i
is an index of the discrete-time step. Ts represents the
sample time whose value is 1 s in this work. The host
car’s acceleration ah,i at step i is calculated with (1c),
where the variable Ft,i and Fb,i represent the traction and
braking forces generated by the engine and braking system
separately. The equivalent vehicle mass meq includes the
vehicle mass mv and the effect of all rotational mass of
the powertrain. The driving resistance consists of three
IFAC E-CoSM 2018
848
Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018 Yanzhao Jia et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-31 (2018) 846–853

parts: a) rolling resistance Froll,i = mv gcr cosθi with road
angle θi ; b) road gradient resistance Fg = mv gsinθi with
gravitational acceleration g; c) aerodynamic resistance
Fair,i = 12 ρa Af ca vh,i
2
, with air density ρa , drag coefficient
ca and frontal area Af .
The inter-vehicle distance should be controlled for driving
safety and comfort. The minimum safety distance dsafety is
defined with (2a), while (2b) defines the maximum comfort
The minimization problem (4) is solved by an off-line
convex programming. Figure 3 demonstrates the percent
error in the power map approximation. The percent error
is smaller than 5% within a large operation area, while
a bigger error only appears when the traction force is
very small. The power map approximation is done for each
different gear separately.
3000 35

Traction Force (N)

distance dcomfort . dmin,0 and dmax,0 are two constants, 30
representing the minimum and maximum inter-vehicle 2000 25
distance when the car is at standstill, while the coefficients 20
of hmin and hcomfort enable dsafety and dcomfort to vary with Percent Error (%) 15
the speed of the host car. 1000
10
dsafety,i = dmin,0 + hmin vh,i (2a) 5
dcomfort,i = dmax,0 + hcomfort vh,i (2b) 0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Speed (m/s)
2.3 Approximation of the Power Consumption Map
Fig. 3. Error in power map approximation for one gear
The stationary power consumption Pc of an internal com-
bustion engine (ICE) car is a non-linear mapping of the 2.4 Variants of MPC Problem Formulations
vehicle speed v, the gear selection and the traction force
Ft . The mapping function ϕ is defined with (3). Figure 2 To reduce the fuel consumption in daily driving, some
shows a measurement result of the stationary power map recent studies (Schmied et al., 2015b; Lin et al., 2017)
for one specific gear. proposed a type of cost function, which is based on the
ϕ : Ft × v → Pc (3) intuition that avoiding frequent hard acceleration and
braking is beneficial for saving energy. Although these
studies showed some good results, an exact correlation
between the consumed energy and the control variables
Power Consumption (Watt)

5
×10
4 was not defined in the cost functions. Because the power
map approximation function (4b) depicts the real con-
2 sumed power of an ICE car with good accuracy, this
function is used in this paper to explicitly describe how fuel
0
consumption varies with the control and state variables. As
3000 illustrated in Fig. 1, the control objectives of EACC do not
2000 40
1000 20
30 only include fuel reduction but also other aspects, which
10
Traction Force (N) 0 0 Vehicle Speed (m/s) need to be depicted with a suitable problem formulation.
Three problem formulation methods are discussed below.
Fig. 2. Measured power consumption map for one gear A. Method I The first problem formulation is a variant
and an extension of the method proposed by (Schmied
Finding the best function for approximating the non-linear et al., 2015a). The mathematical formulation is given by
power map ϕ is a minimization problem: k+H−1

2 2 2
N
M  min f (Ft,i , vi ) + ω1 δ1,i + ω2 δ2,i + ω3 Fb,i (5a)
 Ft,i ,Fb,i
min (f (Ft,m , vn ) − ϕ(Ft,m , vn ))2 (4a) i=k
p00 ,...,p11
m=1 n=1
Ts
s.t. vh,i+1 = vh,i + (Ft,i − Fb,i − mv gcr cosθi
where f (Ft , v) = p00 + p01 Ft + p10 v + p02 Ft2 meq
(4b) 1
+ p20 v 2 + p11 vFt 2
− mv gsinθi − ρa Af ca vh,i )
  2
2p02 p11 (5b)
s.t. A = 0 (4c)
p11 2p20 vp,i + vp,i+1 vh,i + vh,i+1
di+1 = di + ( − )Ts (5c)
The polynomial function (4b) with six coefficients is de- 2 2
signed to approximate the non-linear power map. The di ≥ dmin,0 + hmin vh,i (5d)
optimization problem (4) is used to find the most optimal di ≤ dmax,0 + hcomfort vh,i + δ1,i (5e)
values of the six coefficients (i.e., p00 , p01 , p10 , p02 , p20 , p11 ),
with which the discrepancy between the polynomial func- 0 ≤ Ft,i ≤ a10 + a11 vh,i
tion and the real map is minimized. The indices of m and Ft,i ≤ a20 + a21 vh,i (5f)
n in (4a) represent discrete feasible operation points of Ft,i ≤ a30 + a31 vh,i
the traction force and the vehicle speed for one specific |Ft,i − Ft,i−1 | ≤ ∆Ft,max + δ2,i (5g)
gear. The optimization constraint (4c) is to ensure that
0 ≤ Fb,i ≤ Fbrake,max
the Hessian matrix of this approximation function (4a) is (5h)
positive semi-definite for having a global optimal solution. vmin,i ≤ vh,i ≤ vmax,i

892
IFAC E-CoSM 2018
Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018 Yanzhao Jia et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-31 (2018) 846–853 849
where the index of time i is defined as i = k, ..., k + H − 1.
Here, k is the current time step and H represents the
length of the prediction horizon. The total cost function
(5a) consists of four items. The first item represents the
power consumption with the approximation function (4b).
Only with this item, the host car would tend to move
slowly, as discussed in Section 2.1. Therefore, the second
2
item δ1,i is added to the cost function, as a penalty
when the inter-vehicle distance is bigger than the comfort
distance (2b). δ1,i is a slack variable in the soft constraint
(5e). With the second item, the host car is forced to
move faster. The newly introduced third item with the
variable δ2 is used to penalize the change in traction
force Ft between two sampling instants for better driving
comfort, which is defined with (5g). The last item of this
cost function is used to penalize unnecessary braking Fb,i ,
which causes a dissipation of the vehicle’s kinetic energy.
The cost function is minimized with using vehicle dynamic
equations (5b) and (5c), which are deduced in Section 2.2.
The necessity of having the third and the fourth item in
(5a) is further explained in Section 3.4.
During the optimization process, several constraints are
considered: (5d) is the safety constraint, which guarantees
that the inter-vehicle distance is strictly bigger than the
minimum safety distance (2a). The upper limit of the
traction force depends on the vehicle speed and the gear
position, as shown in Fig. 4. The maximum traction force
for each gear is represented with three linear lines, which
are shown with dash lines in Fig. 4 and mathematically
expressed with (5f). The constraints (5h) limits the brak-
ing force Fb and restricts the vehicle speed vh according
to driving regulations.
1st gear
a20+a21x
a11 x
a 30
Traction Force (N)
+a
a10+
31
2nd gear
x
3rd gear
4th gear
5th gear
Speed (km/h)
Fig. 4. Upper limit of the traction force for different gears
The general control structure is schematically depicted in
Fig. 5. The traction force Ft,k and braking force Fb,k at the
current time step k are optimized according to the future
speed of the preceding car vp,k+i|k , as well as other driving
information (e.g., road speed limit vlimit,k+i|k , inter-vehicle
distance dk+i|k and road gradient θk+i|k ). The notation
(·)k+i|k represents the prediction of the variable (·) at
future time step k + i, calculated at the current time k.
The inter-vehicle distance Zone 1 and 2 in Fig. 5 are
designed for avoiding unnecessary braking and too early
acceleration. For instance, when the host car is in Zone
2 and the preceding car suddenly brakes, the host car
will probably do coasting first with the ICE off, instead
2
of braking, because braking makes the fourth item ω3 Fb,i
in the cost function (5a) increase but brings no benefit for
others. So, braking is used only when it is necessary for
893
Fig. 5. MPC-based EACC with Method I
safety, i.e., when the inter-vehicle distance dk+i|k within
the prediction horizon H will become smaller than the
minimum safety distance dsafety,i without braking. Simi-
larly, when the host car stays in Zone 2, it will not rapidly
accelerate in line with the preceding car, until it enters into
2
Zone 1, where the second item ω1 δ1,i in (5a) will increase if
the host car drives continuously slower than the preceding
car. With such control design, the host car applies both
driving and braking force in a more ecological way.
B. Method II The inspiration of the second problem
formulation is from a recent work (Lu and Müller, 2015),
although this work was done in space domain. The cost
function and constraints are formulated with
k+H−1
2 2 2 2
min f (Ft,i , vi ) + ω1 δ1,i + ω2 δ2,i + ω3 Fb,i + ω4 δ4,i
Ft,i ,Fb,i
i=k
(6a)
s.t. (5b), (5c), (5d), (5f), (5g), (5h)
di ≥ dmax,0 + hcomfort vh,i − δ1,i (6b)
k+H
 k+i
vh,k+i|k ≥ vp,k+i|i − δ4 (6c)
i=k i=k
The key idea of Method II is to track the preceding
car (i.e., Objective 3 in Fig. 1.) by defining an explicit
requirement on the minimum average speed of the host car.
The slack variable δ4 in the soft constraint (6c) quantifies
the difference between the average speed of the host car
and the preceding car in the prediction horizon H. The
lower the speed of the host car is, the bigger the penalty
δ4 becomes, which makes the value of cost function (6a)
rise. On the one hand, the slack variable δ4 propels the host
car to drive faster, on the other hand, it could push the
host car too close to the preceding car, especially when the
preceding car brakes continuously. As discussed in Section
2.1, when the inter-vehicle distance becomes too small, the
free space left for speed optimization is compressed, which
is harmful for improving fuel economy.
Therefore, in order to have more space for regulating
the speed of the host car, another soft constraint (6b)
is introduced. In contrast to the soft constraint (5e) in
Method I, (6b) has an opposite purpose. The slack variable
δ1 increases when the inter-vehicle distance di is smaller
than the comfort distance (2b), which causes a higher cost
of control. So, with applying the penalty δ12 in cost function
(6a), the host car is reluctant to move too fast when it
enters into Zone 2, which is shown in Fig. 6. The host
car would prefer slowing down within Zone 2, often with
coasting, in order to reduce the total cost (6a).
IFAC E-CoSM 2018
850
Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018 Yanzhao Jia et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-31 (2018) 846–853
Fig. 6. MPC-based EACC with Method II
Figure 6 describes the general control loop with the second
problem formulation. With comparison to Fig. 5, Method
I and II have a close affinity, while their main difference
is the design of the soft penalty zones and the way of
impelling the host car to move faster.
C. Method III The idea of the third problem formulation
is based on the previous work (Weißmann et al., 2017). As
discussed in Section 1, MPC is capable of on-line optimal
control, while it normally requires that the system is linear
and the cost can be accurately approximated with a convex
function. However, the control system in the real world is
inherently often non-linear, for which dynamic program-
ming (DP) can provide a globally optimal solution, while
it is hard to be implemented for on-line control due to its
unaffordable computation effort. So the third method is to
combine the strengths of DP with the merits of MPC.
Fig. 7. MPC-based EACC with Method III
Figure 7 shows the general control structure, where vref
is the globally optimal result of DP through an off-line
calculation. It represents the most economical speed profile
from the start point to the final destination of a trip, with
consideration of the road speed limits, road gradient and
expected trip time. The second item in cost function (7a)
penalizes the deviation from vref because the fuel economy
of the host car in a pre-defined trip is the most optimal,
when its speed trajectory is the same as DP’s result.
k+H−1
min f (Ft,i , vi ) + ω5 (vh,i − vref,i )2 (7a)
Ft,i ,Fb,i
i=k
s.t. (5b), (5c), (5d), (5f), (5h)
However, in real driving situations a slower preceding car
often hinders the host car from driving at vref,i . When the
minimum safety distance is to be violated in the prediction
horizon, the host car has to brake, even if its speed would
differ from vref,i . Therefore, the hard constraint (5d) is
applied in problem formulation (7) to ensure that the host
car can drive safely. Additionally, constraints (5f) and (5h)
are used to ensure a feasible behaviour of the host car.
When a slower preceding car accelerates or leaves, the host
894
car will speed up again to reduce the deviation from vref,i .
The first item f (Ft,i , vi ) in (7) is used to make the transient
behaviour of re-tracking the speed reference vref,i smoother
for less fuel consumption.
3. SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENT RESULTS
In this section, the three different methods for the MPC
problem formulation, which are introduced in Section 2,
are compared in a real driving environment. Moreover, the
vehicle behaviours with EACC, the effects of additional
items in the cost function and the prediction information’s
impacts on MPC are revealed. The computation time for
solving a MPC problem is also investigated.
3.1 Test Environment
In automotive industry, a vehicle’s fuel economy is often
calculated through testing in standard cycles whose speed
profiles are pre-defined. However, real driving emission
(RDE) and daily fuel consumption can often differ from
test results in standard cycles. In order to investigate real
driving fuel reduction by using EACC, test cycles are
designed with recorded daily driving data under real traffic
conditions. Figure 8 shows three speed profiles of recorded
data on the same driving route of 17.8 km, which are used
as test cycles. The upper speed limit varies from 30 km/h
to 130 km/h as the driving route includes urban and rural
areas, as well as highways. The trajectories of these cycles
are treated as the speed profiles of a preceding car, which
are used as a baseline in Section 3.2 to study how EACC
optimally regulates the host car’s speed, with utilizing
future information of the preceding car.
140 Long Test Cycle 1 Highway
Long Test Cycle 2
120 Long Test Cycle 3
Road Speed Limit Rural Area
Velocity (km/h)
100
80
Urban Area
60
40
20
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (sec)
Fig. 8. Profiles of test cycles under real traffic conditions
3.2 Test Result and Performance Comparison
MPC-based EACC with the three problem formulation
approaches whose working principles are explained in Sec-
tion 2.4, is investigated in different real driving situations.
Table 1 shows the performance of the three methods in the
three test cycles. For all methods, it is assumed that the
exact future speed trajectory of the preceding car within
the prediction horizon of 14 s is pre-known.
Among the three methods, Method III shows more fuel
reduction in test cycle 2 and 3, while it performs re-
markably worse in cycle 1. The reason is that Method
III provides a globally optimal solution only when the
host car can follow the speed reference trajectory of DP
IFAC E-CoSM 2018

Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018 Yanzhao Jia et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-31 (2018) 846–853 851

vref , which is pre-calculated off-line without considering
real traffic situations. However, in real driving conditions,
a slower preceding car would force the host car to slow
down and deviate from vref . For instance, as shown in Fig.
8, the preceding car drives slowly on the highway in test
cycle 1. In this case, following the optimal trajectory vref
becomes impossible, which results in a deterioration of fuel
economy. In addition, it should be noted that the host car
does not track the preceding car well with Method III in
test cycle 2 and 3. Figure 9 shows that the inter-vehicle
distance d becomes too large at the end of cycle 3 as the
host car tends to drive at vref for better fuel economy, while
vref is considerably lower than the preceding car’s speed vp
on the highway.
150
Speed (km/h)
3.3 Behaviours of Cars with using Method I
The simulation results of Method I are analysed in this
subsection. The vehicle speed trajectories of both the host
car and the preceding car, as well as the road speed
limit, are shown in Fig. 10. The preceding car drives with
frequent strong deceleration and acceleration, especially
before it drives onto the highway. In the urban area, the
preceding car violates the upper road speed limit of 50 km/h
for a while. With Method I, the host car’s speed trajectory
is smoother without applying unnecessary braking. In
addition, the host car complies with the road speed limit
strictly. Due to this more eco-driving style, the host car
saves 6.1% fuel in the whole trip, with a priori knowledge
of the preceding car’s future speed in the horizon of 14 s.

Host Car
Preceding Car 150
100 Speed Limit Host Car Highway
DP Reference 120 Preceding Car
50 Road Speed Limit Rural Area

Speed (km/h)
0 90
1000
Inter-Vehicle Distance Urban Area
Distance (m)

Safety Distance 60
500 Comfort Distance
30
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0
Time (sec) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Time (sec)
Fig. 9. Simulation results for Method III in test cycle 3, a
priori information in the prediction horizon of 14 s Fig. 10. Speed trajectories of two cars with Method I in test
cycle 1, a priori information in the prediction horizon
of 14 s
Table 1. Comparison of the fuel reduction for
the three methods with a priori information in It is observable in Fig. 10 that the host car’s behaviour is
the prediction horizon of 14 s relatively more similar to the preceding car on the highway,
 while its speed differs more from the preceding car in
 Test Cycle urban and rural areas. The two cars’ behaviours are further
 1 2 3
Method  examined in a short test cycle, as shown in Fig. 11. Here, it
Method I: 6.1 % 5.1 % 4.3 %
4
Gradient (degree)

150 Host Vehicle

Method II: 5.3 % 4.9 % 4.1 % Road Gradient
Speed (km/h)

Preceding Vehicle
Method III: 3.4 % 6.0 % 8.8 % 100 Speed Limit 2

50 0
In contrast, with Method I and II the host car tracks the -2
0
preceding car better with a smaller average inter-vehicle 200 Inter Distance 2000 Traction Force
Distance (m)

distance, which is noticeable in Table 2. In terms of fuel Safety Distance Braking Force
Force (N)

Comfort Distance
economy, Method I is slightly better than Method II in 100 1000

the three test cycles, as shown in Table 1. Although the

0 0
main working principles of Method I and II are similar, 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
as explained in Section 2.4, the slight difference in fuel Time (sec) Time (sec)

economy is caused by the tuning factors. Method II has

more weighting factors in cost function (6a), for which
bigger calibration effort is needed for Method II.
Table 2. Comparison of the average inter-
vehicle distance with three methods, a priori
information in the prediction horizon of 14 s

 Test Cycle
 1 2 3 constraint on the comfort distance (5e) and strictly fulfils
Method 
Method I
Method II
Method III
Due to the robuster fuel reduction, better performance of
tracking the preceding car and less required calibration
work, Method I is considered as the best problem formu-
lation. A more detailed analysis of Method I is given in
the subsections below.
Fig. 11. Simulation results for Method I in the short test
cycle, a priori information in the prediction horizon
of 14 s
is noticeable that the host car drives with more moderate
speed changes and applies the coasting strategy (i.e.,
traction force is zero.) more often. Meanwhile, the inter-
vehicle distance is well controlled: it varies around the soft
87m 90m 87m the hard constraint on the minimum safety distance (5d).
87m 89m 87m In this short test cycle, where the speed of the preceding
87m 111m 137m car varies more dynamically within a large range, Method
I brings about a bigger fuel reduction of 13.1%.
3.4 Effects of Additional Items in the Cost Function
As mentioned in Section 2.4, Method I is an extension
of a recent work (Schmied et al., 2015a), in which the

895
IFAC E-CoSM 2018
852
Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018 Yanzhao Jia et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-31 (2018) 846–853
driving comfort was essentially not considered. When the
cost function (5a) only includes the first two items like
the previous work, the traction force can change freely
between two sampling instants. This could result in a
strong oscillation of the traction force, which reduces the
driving comfort. Figure 12 shows how the traction force
could frequently oscillate when there is no penalty for it.
This oscillation can be suppressed by using the third item
2
of ω2 δ2,i in (5a) as a penalty.
2000
Traction Force
1500 Braking Force
Force (N)
Force (N)
1000
500
Oscillation
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Time (sec)
(a). Without Penalty
Fig. 12. Suppressing oscillation of the traction force by a
new penalty in the cost function
Although this penalty is good for driving comfort, it could
cause an unnecessary braking as a side effect. For instance,
under a certain condition, reducing the vehicle speed could
be beneficial for cost function (5a). To slow down the host
car, reducing the traction force is one choice. However,
a quick reduction in the traction force would result in
a big penalty by δ2,i . To avoid such penalty, applying
brakes seems to be a better choice in this situation as it
causes no cost. However, braking always causes a waste of
kinetic energy, which should be avoided unless it is needed
for keeping the minimum safety distance. Therefore, the
2
fourth item ω3 Fb,i is added into (5a), with the goal of
avoiding dispensable braking.
3.5 Influence of the Prediction Information
All three methods of the problem formulation, explained
in Section 2.4 and tested in Section 3.2, need the future
speed of the preceding car as an input. On the one hand,
it is hard to perfectly predict the preceding car’s future
behaviour (Rezaei and Burl, 2015), on the other hand,
MPC could still provide a good result with inaccurate
information (Lin et al., 2017) because MPC on-line up-
dates its control inputs and corrects wrong assumptions
at the next sampling instant, according to the new mea-
surement data. Therefore, it is worth studying how MPC-
based EACC performs when the perfect future information
is unavailable. So, in this work, two types of MPC are
15
Fuel Reduction (%)
10
5 Safety Distance
FTMPC, Three Long Cycles
0 1000
PMPC, Three Long Cycles
FTMPC, Short Cycle
-5 PMPC, Short Cycle
4 6 8 10
Prediction Horizon (sec)
Fig. 13. Impact of the prediction information in different
test cycles with the problem formulation Method I
applied, namely prescient MPC (PMPC) and frozen-time
MPC (FTMPC). PMPC works with a priori knowledge of
the preceding car’s exact future speed within a short pre-
diction horizon, while FTMPC works without the future
information and assumes that the preceding car keeps a
constant speed from the current time step till the end of
one prediction horizon. Figure 13 illustrates how PMPC
and FTMPC perform in three long test cycles and one
short cycle. The following interesting points are notable.
2000
Traction Force
(1) PMPC reduces the fuel consumption more than
1500 Braking Force FTMPC as it exploits the accurate future speed in-
1000
formation of the preceding car.
(2) Fuel economy with PMPC in general increases with
500
the length of the prediction horizon. However, when
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
the horizon is longer than a certain point, the perfor-
Time (sec) mance tends to become worse, due to the fact that
(b). With Penalty a longer horizon could cause a bigger error in the
estimation of road information. This is a drawback of
control in time domain, as mentioned in Section 1.
(3) Without having any future information, the longer
the prediction horizon is, the worse FTMPC per-
forms, because a longer horizon in this case means
a bigger error in the predicted future speed of the
preceding car.
(4) The influence of future information is obviously big-
ger in the short test cycle than in the three long
test cycles. In three long cycles, the perfect future
information brings a relatively small fuel reduction
on the average because a big part of the long cycles
is on the highway, where vehicle’s speed changes less
dramatically, as shown in Fig. 8. In this case, a simple
assumption that the speed in one horizon is the same
as the current speed would result in a small error.
In contrast, when the preceding car’s speed changes
more dramatically in the short test cycle, estimating
its speed with assuming a constant speed within one
horizon could have a bigger error. Figure 14 shows the
cars’ behaviours with applying FTMPC in the short
test cycle. Compared to the performance of PMPC
shown in Fig. 11, with FTMPC the host car increases
its speed more during the acceleration phase, exceed-
ing the peak point of the speed profile of the preceding
car. The higher speed of the host car results in more
braking later on for keeping the safety distance to the
preceding car, which causes a waste of the energy. So,
in this test situation, PMPC brings out around 7%
extra fuel reduction, compared to FTMPC.
150
Gradient (degree)
Host Car 4
Road Gradient
Speed (km/h)
Preceding Car
Road Speed Limit
100 2
50 0
0 -2
200 Inter-Vehicle Distance
Distance (m)
Traction Force
Force (N)
Comfort Distance 2000 Braking Force
100
0 0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 0 40 80 120 160 200 240
12 14 16 18 Time (sec) Time (sec)
Fig. 14. Simulation results of FTMPC for Method I in the
short test cycle, without a priori information
896
IFAC E-CoSM 2018
Changchun, China, September 20-22, 2018 Yanzhao Jia et al. / IFAC PapersOnLine 51-31 (2018) 846–853 853
3.6 Computation Time
Required computation time for MPC, which varies with
the length of the prediction horizon, is shown in Table
3. The simulation is executed in Matlab R2016a on a
computer with Windows 7 and Intel Core i5-2450M CPU
with clock frequency 2.5GHz. The optimization problem
(5) is solved by the solver of quadprog with the interior-
point method. It is noticeable that the average required
computation time is remarkably less than the sample time
of 1s, which shows the capability of MPC-based EACC for
on-line control.
Table 3. Computation time for Method I with
different prediction horizons
Horizon Length H=5 H=10 H=20
Average Computation Time 16ms 33ms 62 ms
4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper different control objectives and new ap-
proaches of applying EACC on an ICE car with multiple
gears have been discussed. Three different problem formu-
lations are compared and analysed for MPC-based EACC
in time domain. The best problem formulation method is
revealed with the consideration of the robustness of fuel
reduction, driving comfort and requirements on calibra-
tion work. Around 4% to 5% fuel reduction is observed
in three real driving test cycles. Influences of both the
future information and the prediction horizon on EACC’s
performance are revealed in different test conditions.
In future, the specific driving situations, in which a priori
speed information of the preceding car significantly affects
MPC’s performance, will be further investigated. Predic-
tion technology will be developed in order to estimate
the preceding car’s future behaviour more accurately in
these specific situations. The MPC-based controller will
be adapted to predictive information in order to generate
a bigger benefit in the fuel reduction and driving comfort.
EACC will be further tested in various geographical areas
in order to ensure that it performs robustly on different
roads.
REFERENCES
Alam, A., Martensson, J., and Johansson, K.H. (2013).
Look-ahead cruise control for heavy duty vehicle pla-
tooning. In 16th IEEE ITSC, 928–935.
Alam, A., Mårtensson, J., and Johansson, K.H. (2015).
Experimental evaluation of decentralized cooperative
cruise control for heavy-duty vehicle platooning. Control
Engineering Practice, 38, 11–25.
Bemporad, A. and Patrinos, P. (2012). Simple and certi-
fiable quadratic programming algorithms for embedded
linear model predictive control. IFAC Proceedings Vol-
umes, 45(17), 14–20.
Hellström, E., Åslund, J., and Nielsen, L. (2010). Design
of an efficient algorithm for fuel-optimal look-ahead
control. Control Engineering Practice, 18(11), 1318–
1327.
Johannesson, L., Nilsson, M., and Murgovski, N. (2015).
Look-ahead vehicle energy management with traffic pre-
dictions. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 48(15), 244–251.
897
Kamal, M.A.S., Mukai, M., Murata, J., and Kawabe,
T. (2010). On board eco-driving system for varying
road-traffic environments using model predictive con-
trol. In IEEE International Conference on Control
Applications, 1636–1641.
Kamal, M.A.S., Mukai, M., Murata, J., and Kawabe, T.
(2013). Model predictive control of vehicles on urban
roads for improved fuel economy. IEEE Transactions
on control systems technology, 21(3), 831–841.
Lin, X., Görges, D., and Liu, S. (2014). Eco-driving
assistance system for electric vehicles based on speed
profile optimization. In IEEE Conference on Control
Applications, 629–634.
Lin, X., Görges, D., and Weißmann, A. (2017). Simplified
energy-efficient adaptive cruise control based on model
predictive control. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 50(1),
4794–4799.
Lu, L. and Müller, S. (2015). Model predictive speed and
headway control with energy optimization for a series
hybrid vehicle with range extender. In 4th ICMCE, 35:
02003.
Luo, L.h., Liu, H., Li, P., and Wang, H. (2010). Model
predictive control for adaptive cruise control with
multi-objectives: comfort, fuel-economy, safety and car-
following. Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE A,
11(3), 191–201.
Luu, H.T., Nouveliere, L., and Mammar, S. (2010). Dy-
namic programming for fuel consumption optimization
on light vehicle. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 43(7), 372–
377.
Nakagawa, M., Yano, K., Yamauchi, I., Stapelbroek, M.,
Hülshorst, T., and Nase, A. (2016). New degrees of
freedom for dimensioning of hybrid powertrains by using
predictive energy management. In 37th International
Vienna Motor Symposium, 248–264.
Ploeg, J., Scheepers, B.T., Van Nunen, E., Van de Wouw,
N., and Nijmeijer, H. (2011). Design and experimental
evaluation of cooperative adaptive cruise control. In
14th IEEE ITSC, 260–265.
Rezaei, A. and Burl, J.B. (2015). Prediction of vehicle
velocity for model predictive control. IFAC Proceedings
Volumes, 48(15), 257–262.
Schmied, R., Waschl, H., and del Re, L. (2015a). Extension
and experimental validation of fuel efficient predictive
adaptive cruise control. In American Control Confer-
ence, 4753–4758.
Schmied, R., Waschl, H., Quirynen, R., Diehl, M., and del
Re, L. (2015b). Nonlinear MPC for emission efficient
cooperative adaptive cruise control. IFAC Proceedings
Volumes, 48(23), 160–165.
Schwickart, T., Voos, H., Hadji-Minaglou, J.R., and
Darouach, M. (2016). A fast model-predictive speed
controller for minimised charge consumption of electric
vehicles. Asian Journal of Control, 18(1), 133–149.
Stanger, T. and del Re, L. (2013). A model predictive co-
operative adaptive cruise control approach. In American
Control Conference, 1374–1379.
Weißmann, A., Görges, D., and Lin, X. (2017). Energy-
optimal adaptive cruise control based on model predic-
tive control. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 50(1), 12563–
12568.