Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Mechatronics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mechatronics

Torque optimization control for electric vehicles with four in-wheel motors
equipped with regenerative braking system☆
Wei Xu a,b, Hong Chen a,b, Haiyan Zhao a,b,∗, Bingtao Ren c
a
State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Control, Jilin University, PR China
b
Department of Control Science and Engineering, Jilin University, PR China
c
School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Beihang University, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: This paper presents a novel braking torque distribution strategy for electric vehicles with four in-wheel motors
Electric vehicle equipped with the regenerative braking system. Safety and regeneration efficiency are the two major themes
Regenerative braking in the design of a regenerative braking system. Based on model predictive control (MPC) theory, the issues of
Model predict control
multiple objectives and constraints of the regenerative braking system is well addressed. This proposed torque
Torque cooperative control
distribution controller can maximize the regeneration efficiency by determining the hydraulic braking torque and
motor braking torque, which subject to the actuator constraints. Total braking torque of the four wheels tracks
the braking requirement. Furthermore, in the case of ensuring brake safety, the braking torque of front and
rear wheels are optimized to improve the possibility of energy recovery. The simulations have been conducted in
Simulink environment based on an electric vehicle model established in AMESim software to verify the advantage
of the proposed model predictive controller. In addition, the real-time test also demonstrates the effectiveness of
the presented optimal control strategy.

1. Introduction
Kinetic energy converting to thermal energy dissipated a lot during
the friction braking process. Especially in urban areas, acceleration and
deceleration are more frequent. Brake energy accounts for 30% to 50%
of total energy of the power plant [1,2]. However, regenerative braking
technology of new energy vehicles can significantly reduce the tractive-
fuel consumption and increase the driving range [3]. The research of
the regenerative braking system has drawn much attention from both
industry and academia [4,5].
The structure of the regenerative braking system is very different
from the traditional friction braking system. The electric drive system
will provide regenerative braking force and the braking process has been
associated with the power transmission system. This poses many chal-
lenges to the well-established traditional vehicle technologies associated
with powertrains, vehicle dynamics and stability [6]. The more general
braking mode of electric vehicles is the coordination of regenerative
braking and friction braking. Also, the fully electric regenerative brak-
ing system (FE-RBS), which uses electric motors as the unique braking
actuators, is investigated by some researchers [7]. However, the regen-
erative braking system has a limited working rang, which hampers the
wide application of FE-RBS.
The braking strategy of the hybrid braking system is critical to obtain
more recovery energy, and the strategies can generally be divided into
two categories. One is the parallel regenerative braking strategy, which
simultaneously produces both regenerative braking force and friction
braking force in parallel [8,9]. Since this strategy has no coordinated
control of two braking modes, it directly adds the regenerative braking
force to the system, without adjusting the original friction braking force.
This largely limited the optimized space of regeneration efficiency and
braking performance [8]. The other one is the series regenerative brak-
ing strategy [10]. The main idea is to prioritize the use of regenerative
braking, and adjust friction braking to satisfy the total braking require-
ment. The main issue of the series method is how to distribute the brak-
ing torque between front/rear wheels and friction/regenerative modes.
Sangtarash et al. [8] studied and compared three different regenerative
braking strategies; series braking with optimal braking feel, series brak-
ing with optimal energy recovery, and parallel braking strategies. Ac-
cording to this thought, Zhang et al. [11] carried out three series regen-
erative braking strategies; the maximum-regeneration-efficiency strat-
egy, the good-pedal-feel strategy and the coordination strategy, which
aim to improve the regeneration efficiency and brake comfort. Another
considerable issue of the hybrid braking system is the vehicle stabil-
ity. In the conventional hydraulic braking system, Anti-lock braking

☆
This paper was recommended for publication by Associate Editor Prof Carl Knospe.
∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: chenh@jlu.edu.cn (H. Chen), hyzhao2008@126.com (H. Zhao).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2018.11.006
Received 8 January 2018; Received in revised form 5 November 2018; Accepted 15 November 2018
Available online 10 December 2018
0957-4158/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

system (ABS) plays a crucial role in vehicle emergency braking maneu-

vers. However, for the hybrid braking system, the advantage of both
friction braking and regenerative braking can be taken to improve the
braking performance. Friction braking torque has a very large work-
ing range and regenerative braking has a faster feature in dynamics to
control wheel slip better in an emergency-braking maneuver. In addi-
tion, regenerative braking control can also recover the wasted energy
by conventional friction braking [12]. Therefore, the safety problem is
considered alongside the energy recovery in this paper.
The integral torque optimization control problem of the hybrid brak-
ing system consists of two aspects. One is the allocation between electric
braking torque and hydraulic braking torque, and the other is the allo-
cation between front and rear wheels. Many studies of braking torque
distribution are based on rule-based strategy [5,11,13], which lack flexi-
bility in the handling of system constraints, and may cause chaotic logic
when dealing with multiple rules. Moreover, it is difficult to observe Fig. 1. Structure of electric vehicle with four in-wheel motors equipped with
the impact of a single rule on the system. A regenerative braking con- hybrid braking system.
troller based on fuzzy logic control is designed in [14]. The driver’s re-
quired braking force, vehicle speed, and SOC of the battery are chosen as
the input variables. The fuzzy logic controller design is too dependent 2. Control-oriented modeling
on the actual experience and on a large number of simulation experi-
ments. Moreover, the fuzzy process of information may lead to lower One advantage of the four small high-power in-wheel motored elec-
control accuracy and poor dynamic quality. Kanarachos et al. [15] car- tric vehicle is that all the wheels can be controlled independently [19].
ried out a distribution strategy, which uses the state-dependent Riccati In this paper, only the braking mode of in-wheel motors is considered.
equation method to handle the tire saturation and motor constraints. According to the information of system states, which include the brake
Huang et al. [16] presented a nonlinear model predictive controller for pedal signal, the state of charge (SOC) of the battery, the variable rotary
the regenerative braking system to improve the regeneration energy by velocity and the braking torque of the motors etc., vehicle control unit
allocating the front and rear braking torque. However, the torque allo- determines the control responses of electric motor braking control unit
cation between electric motor braking and hydraulic braking was not and hydraulic braking control unit. They would operate coordinately to
mentioned, which seriously limited the potential possibility of the en- ensure the vehicle stability and improve the regeneration efficiency. The
ergy recovery. configuration diagram of an electric vehicle with four in-wheel motors
The current issue of the regenerative braking system is how to coor- equipped with hybrid braking system is given in Fig. 1.
dinate friction braking and regenerative braking, and how to distribute
the braking torque to optimize and improve the braking performance 2.1. Motor model
and energy recovery. Most of the current research considered the fric-
tion/regenerative braking distribution, front/rear braking distribution As a crucial part of the regenerative braking system, the accuracy, ra-
and wheel slip control problems of series hybrid braking system sepa- pidity, and energy conversion efficiency of in-wheel motors significantly
rate. The control process of this hierarchical strategy is cumbersome and affect the overall system performance. The front and rear in-wheel mo-
the constraints can’t be considered systematically. This paper is devoted tors are the same in this paper. They are simplified as a first-order re-
to design a holistic regenerative braking control strategy to satisfy the action model with a small time constant 𝜏, which is described as fol-
generalized case for a hybrid braking system. As an effective way to deal lows [18],
with multiple objectives and constraints of the optimization problem, 1
𝑇𝑚 = ⋅𝑇 , (1)
MPC method [17,18] is used to design the holistic braking torque opti- 𝜏𝑠 + 1 𝑚,𝑟𝑒𝑓
mization controller. The main contribution of this research lies in three
where Tm is the actual motor torque, Tm, ref is the reference motor torque.
aspects. First, a novel holistic series regenerative braking control strat-
The output torque of motors will be amplified and exerted on the
egy of electric vehicles is designed to improve the energy efficiency and
wheels through the reduction gear, simultaneously, the rotary velocity
braking performance, which satisfies the general case of a hybrid brak-
of in-wheel motors to wheels will decrease, the above relationships can
ing system. Second, the MPC method effectively dealt with the multiple
be expressed as follows,
input variables and constrains of the system, and improved the energy
efficiency and braking performance based on the prediction of future 𝑇𝑤 = 𝑔0 𝑇𝑚 , (2)
states. Third, the ideal front/rear braking distribution is transformed
into one of the cost functions, which ensured the braking stability and 1
𝜔𝑤 = ⋅ 𝜔𝑚 , (3)
made the distribution of braking torque more flexible to recover more 𝑔0
energy.
where Tw is the braking torque on the wheels, 𝜔w and 𝜔m are respec-
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In the second sec-
tively the rotary velocity of the motors and the wheels, g0 is the trans-
tion, the system layout of an electric vehicle with four in-wheel motors
mission ratio of the reduction gear.
equipped with a regenerative braking system and the vehicle dynamics
The motor-to-battery regenerative braking efficiency 𝜂 is defined as
models are introduced. In the third section, a holistic torque distribu-
the ratio between charging power of the battery and the motor power,
tion controller is developed based on MPC theory to improve the regen-
which can be described by
eration efficiency and braking performance. In the fourth section, the
proposed integrated distribution control strategy is evaluated through 𝑈𝑐 𝐼𝑐
𝜂= (4)
the simulations. The real-time test results are given in the fifth section. 𝑇𝑚 𝜔𝑚
Finally, the conclusions are proposed in the sixth section. where Uc and Ic are respectively the battery charging voltage and cur-

96
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

Fig. 3. Half vehicle braking model.

this research, but it should be observed that the steering plays a key role
during the braking process and it is a normal driving situation which
will be considered in the future work. A half vehicle dynamics model
with three degrees of freedom, which includes the longitudinal motion
Fig. 2. Motor-to-battery efficiency map. and the rotational movement of front and rear wheels, is illustrated in
Fig. 3. The equations of vehicle dynamic behavior in longitudinal and
Table 1 rotational directions during a braking process can be described as fol-
Main parameters of in-wheel motors. lows [20,21],
Definition Symbol Value 𝑀 𝑉̇ = −𝐹𝑥𝑓 − 𝐹𝑥𝑟 − 𝐹𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜 − 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙 , (7)
Torque time constant 𝜏 0.1 s
Minimum voltage Um, min 0.001 V 1
𝐽𝑗 𝜔̇ 𝑤𝑗 = (𝑅 𝐹 − 𝑇𝑏𝑗 ), 𝑗 = 𝑓 , 𝑟, (8)
Maximum torque Tm, max 118 Nm 2 𝑒 𝑥𝑗
Maximum rotary velocity 𝜔m, max 9000 rpm
Maximum power Pm, max 2.6 KW where M is the total mass of the vehicle, V is the vehicle longitudinal
velocity, Fxf and Fxr are respectively the longitudinal tire-road friction
force at front and rear tires. Jj and 𝜔wj are respectively the rotation
rent of one in-wheel motor. Since both of the battery charging voltage inertia and the rotary velocity of front and rear wheels, Re is the effective
and current are the functions of braking torque and rotary velocity of rolling radius of the tires, Tbj is the total braking torque of front and
the in-wheel motors, the efficiency 𝜂 can be expressed as follows [16], rear wheels. Faero and Froll are respectively the equivalent longitudinal
aerodynamic drag force and the force due to rolling resistance at tires,
𝜂 = 𝜂(𝑇𝑚 , 𝜔𝑚 ), (5) which can be expressed as follows [22],
1
the efficiency map of the in-wheel motors employed in this research is 𝐹𝑎𝑒𝑟𝑜 = 𝜌𝐶 𝐴 𝑉 , (9)
2 𝑑 𝐹
illustrated in Fig. 2. As can be seen from the figure, the motor efficiency
of the driving mode and regenerative braking mode are almost the same. 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙 = 𝑓 (𝐹𝑧𝑓 + 𝐹𝑧𝑟 ), (10)
And it should be observed that the motor efficiency is small when the
rotary velocity is low. The main parameters of the in-wheel motors are where 𝜌 is the mass density of air, Cd is the aerodynamic drag coefficient,
given in Table 1. AF is the frontal area of the vehicle, f is the rolling resistance coefficient,
Fzf and Fzr are respectively the normal load on front and rear tires.
2.2. Battery model The tire-road friction force can be described as a product of the nor-
mal load on tires and the tire-road friction coefficient 𝜇, which is a func-
The battery pack model employed in the electric vehicle is an aver- tion of the slip ratio 𝜅. The relationship is given in Eq. (11).
age model of battery. The equivalent electrical circuit consists a variable 𝐹𝑥𝑗 = 𝜇𝑗 (𝜅)𝐹𝑧𝑗 . (11)
voltage source (also known as open circuit voltage) and a variable resis-
tance (also known as internal resistance), they are function of the state As the supporter and transferee of road and vehicle, characteristics
of charge (SOC) and the temperature. The nominal capacity of the bat- of the tire have a serious impact on vehicle condition. As can exactly
tery is 70 Ah. The battery regenerative power Pr can be described by describe the tire characteristics, the Magic Formula model developed
by Pacejka [23] is widely used in literatures [24]. In the Magic Formula
𝑃𝑟 = 𝑈𝑏 𝐼𝑏 , (6) model, tire-road friction coefficient can be expressed as a nonlinear func-
tion of the slip ratio, which is described as follows,
where Ub and Ib are respectively the terminal voltage and current of the
𝜇𝑗 (𝜅) = 𝐷𝑥 sin{𝐶𝑥 arctan[𝐵𝑥 𝜅𝑗 − 𝐸𝑥 (𝐵𝑥 𝜅𝑗 − arctan(𝐵𝑥 𝜅𝑗 ))]}, (12)
battery.
where Bx , Cx , Dx , Ex are respectively the stiffness, shape, peak and curva-
2.3. Vehicle dynamics model ture factor, which can be calculated with vehicle parameters. The longi-
tudinal slip ratio is introduced as an input variable instead of the braking
The vehicle dynamics model is necessary to be proposed to develop or driving force, which describes the difference between the actual lon-
a regenerative braking controller. As the main research in this paper is gitudinal velocity at the axle of the wheel and the equivalent rotational
braking performance of electric vehicles, only the longitudinal motion is velocity of the tire.
considered in vehicle dynamics model. Furthermore, the straight brak- 𝜔𝑤𝑗 𝑅𝑒 − 𝑉
ing condition is assumed and no steering effect is considered as far as 𝜅𝑗 = . (13)
𝑉

97
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al.
Fig. 4. Structure of the regenerative braking control system.
Moreover, the normal load on the front and rear tires depends on the
longitudinal deceleration ax , which can be expressed as follows,
𝑀(𝑙𝑟 𝑔 − ℎ𝑎𝑥 )
𝐹𝑧𝑓 = , (14)
𝑙𝑓 + 𝑙𝑟
𝑀(𝑙𝑓 𝑔 + ℎ𝑎𝑥 )
𝐹𝑧𝑟 = , (15)
𝑙𝑓 + 𝑙𝑟
where lf and lr are respectively the longitudinal distance from center of
gravity to front and rear tires, g is the acceleration due to gravity, h is
the distance from center of gravity to ground of the vehicle.
3. Design of regenerative braking system
In order to improve the regeneration efficiency in the case of brake
safety, a braking torque optimization controller is presented in this sec-
tion. the optimization problem with multiple objectives and constrains
is effectively solved based on MPC method. In addition, a holistic con-
trol strategy is designed to ensure the stability and reliability of the ve-
hicle. The integral configuration of the regenerative braking system is
illustrated in Fig. 4. Total braking requirement is first figured out by the
desired braking torque calculation module. Secondly, the motor and hy-
draulic braking torque on the front and rear wheels, which will respec-
tively be the input of motor and hydraulic actuator units, are allocated
based on the model predictive controller. During the braking process,
the electric energy is charged into the battery. We assumed that the sys-
tem variables can be measured by the corresponding onboard sensors
or a global positioning system.
3.1. Problem formulation
Safety and energy efficiency are the two critical issues in the design
of braking torque distribution for a regenerative braking system. These
two aspects are respectively introduced as follows.
3.1.1. Safety
Naturally, ensuring safety is the precondition for any form of vehi-
cle control. Only the longitudinal braking maneuver is considered in this
paper. In order to guarantee the brake safety, the total braking torque
on the four wheels, which includes in-wheel motor braking torque and
hydraulic braking torque, first needs to satisfy the driver’s braking re-
quirement. In addition, a reasonable allocation between front and rear
wheel braking torque is essential to achieve a good braking performance
98
Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108
while braking on different roads. It can be deduced according to the ve-
hicle force analysis that the vehicle would be unstable if the rear wheels
lock before the front wheels lock, which may cause the vehicle drift.
3.1.2. Energy efficiency
In the case of vehicle safety, we expect to recover as much energy
as possible during the braking process. In other words, the more elec-
tric motors work, the better. However, several constraints of the sys-
tem limit the regenerative braking mode. First, the maximum braking
torque determined by the motor characteristics is a time-varying con-
straint related to rotary velocity. Electric motor braking cannot provide
entire braking requirement while the rotary velocity is high, and desired
deceleration is large, the rest braking requirement needs to be compen-
sated by hydraulic braking. Secondly, due to the fact that electric motor
cannot generate regenerative current while the rotary velocity is be-
low a certain value of 𝜔c , so in the case of braking safety, the braking
mode switched from electric braking to hydraulic braking at this critical
point. 𝜔c is a function of the charging voltage of the battery Uc and the
magnetic flux 𝜙 of in-wheel motors as in Eq. (16), which is considered
as a constant value in current research. Moreover, the charging power
of the battery is limited by several factors, which include SOC, maxi-
mum charging power, and maximum charging current of the battery.
As the main work of this paper focus on the distribution strategy, the
characteristics of the battery are considered ideal. In summary, a series
strategy sketch of hydraulic braking and electric motor braking is shown
in Fig. 5.
𝜔𝑐 = 𝜔𝑐 (𝑈𝑐 , 𝜙). (16)
The braking torque distribution problem can be described as an opti-
mization problem with multiple objectives and constraints. As an effec-
tive way to deal with this kind of optimal control problem, MPC method
can predict future system states according to the current plant measure-
ments and explicitly handle constraints while keeping the dependent
variables close to the target. Take the advantages of receding optimal,
MPC method is employed for the controller design.
3.2. Desired braking torque calculation
The desired braking torque is calculated by the braking control sig-
nal, which is provided by the driver model with a PID controller. The
braking control output is a linear combination of the error Ve between
the reference speed Vr and the actual vehicle speed V, which can be
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

𝑔0 [ 1 ]
𝑥̇ 2 = 𝑅 𝜇 (𝑥 )𝐹 (𝑡) − 𝑢2 − 𝑔0 𝑢4 , (20b)
𝐽𝑟 2 𝑒 𝑟 2 𝑧𝑟

[ ] [ ]
𝑥1 𝜔
𝑥= = 𝑚𝑓 ,
𝑥2 𝜔𝑚𝑟

⎡𝑢1 ⎤ ⎡𝑇ℎ𝑓 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
𝑢 𝑇
𝑢 = ⎢ 2 ⎥ = ⎢ ℎ𝑟 ⎥,
⎢𝑢3 ⎥ ⎢𝑇𝑚𝑓 ⎥
⎢𝑢 ⎥ ⎢𝑇 ⎥
⎣ 4 ⎦ ⎣ 𝑚𝑟 ⎦

𝑦 = 𝑥.

Fig. 5. Series strategy sketch of hydraulic braking and electric motor braking.
where the state vectors consist of the rotary velocity of front and rear
in-wheel motors 𝜔mf , 𝜔mf , the control inputs consist of the hydraulic
and electric motor braking torque on each front and rear wheel Thf , Thr ,
Tmf , Tmr , which are also the dependent variables determined by model
predictive controller. y is the output variable, i.e. the state variable.
According to the assumption of the same vehicle performance on left
and right, the braking torque eventually on each wheel can be described
as follows,

𝑇ℎ𝑓 𝑙 = 𝑇ℎ𝑓 𝑟 = 𝑇ℎ𝑓 , (21a)

𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑙 = 𝑇ℎ𝑟𝑟 = 𝑇ℎ𝑟 , (21b)

𝑇𝑚𝑓 𝑙 = 𝑇𝑚𝑓 𝑟 = 𝑇𝑚𝑓 , (21c)

𝑇𝑚𝑟𝑙 = 𝑇𝑚𝑟𝑟 = 𝑇𝑚𝑟 . (21d)

The discrete form of the above controller design model is derived by

Euler method as follows,
Fig. 6. Outer characteristic of the in-wheel motors. 𝑇𝑠 𝑔0 [ 1 ]
𝑥1 (𝑘 + 1) = 𝑅𝑒 𝜇𝑓 (𝑥1 (𝑘))𝐹𝑧𝑓 (𝑘) − 𝑢1 (𝑘) − 𝑔0 𝑢3 (𝑘) + 𝑥1 (𝑘), (22a)
𝐽𝑓 2
expressed as follows,
𝑇𝑠 𝑔0 [ 1 ]
𝑉𝑒 = 𝑉𝑟 − 𝑉 , (17) 𝑥2 (𝑘 + 1) = 𝑅 𝜇 (𝑥 (𝑘))𝐹𝑧𝑟 (𝑘) − 𝑢2 (𝑘) − 𝑔0 𝑢4 (𝑘) + 𝑥2 (𝑘), (22b)
𝐽𝑟 2 𝑒 𝑟 2

where Ts is the sample time of the controller, and k is the current instant,
𝑧 = −𝐾𝑝 𝑉𝑒 − 𝐾𝑖 𝑉𝑒 𝑑𝑡 − 𝐾𝑑 𝑉̇ 𝑒 , (18)
∫ it can be described as 𝑘 = 𝑖𝑛𝑡( 𝑇𝑡 ), where t is the running time. The dis-
𝑠
where z represents the braking control signal, its value is in range [0,1] crete forms of other equations of the system dynamics model are listed
(0=no braking; 1=maximum braking). Then, the desired braking torque as follows,
Tref can be calculated as follows,
𝜇𝑗 (𝑘) = 𝐷𝑥 sin{𝐶𝑥 arctan[𝐵𝑥 𝜅𝑗 (𝑘) − 𝐸𝑥 (𝐵𝑥 𝜅𝑗 (𝑘) − arctan(𝐵𝑥 𝜅𝑗 (𝑘)))]}, (23)
𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝑧(−4𝑔0 𝑇𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝜔) − 𝑇ℎ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). (19)
where Tm, max is the available maximum braking torque at the current 𝜔𝑤𝑗 (𝑘)𝑅𝑒 − 𝑉 (𝑘)
moment, which is a function of the motor rotary velocity. The outer 𝜅𝑗 ( 𝑘 ) = , (24)
𝑉 (𝑘)
characteristics of the motor is illustrated in Fig. 6. It is constant torque
region while the motor rotary velocity below 𝜔m0 , otherwise is the con-
stant power region. Th, max is the maximum hydraulic braking torque. 𝑀(𝑙𝑟 𝑔 − ℎ𝑎𝑥 (𝑘))
𝐹𝑧𝑓 (𝑘) = , (25)
𝑙𝑓 + 𝑙𝑟
3.3. State space model
𝑀(𝑙𝑓 𝑔 + ℎ𝑎𝑥 (𝑘))
Based on Eqs. (3), (8), (11), the state space equations is derived as 𝐹𝑧𝑟 (𝑘) = , (26)
follows, 𝑙𝑓 + 𝑙𝑟
𝑔 [1 ]
𝑥̇ 1 = 0 𝑅𝑒 𝜇𝑓 (𝑥1 )𝐹𝑧𝑓 (𝑡) − 𝑢1 − 𝑔0 𝑢3 , (20a)
𝐽𝑓 2 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝑘) = 𝑧(𝑘)(−4𝑔0 𝑇𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑘) − 𝑇ℎ,𝑚𝑎𝑥 ). (27)

99
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

Fig. 7. Simulation platform of the electric vehicle.

Fig. 9. Velocity-tracking performance.

state variables are predicted from 𝑘 + 1 to 𝑘 + 𝑝 as follows,

Fig. 8. Torque distribution results.
3.4. Predictive equations
According to the predictive control theory, the future state of the
system can be predicted based on the current measurement states. At
the current instant k, according to the discrete state space model, the
𝑥(𝑘 + 1|𝑘) = 𝑥(𝑘) + 𝑓 (𝑥(𝑘), 𝑢(𝑘))𝑇𝑠 ,
𝑥(𝑘 + 2|𝑘) = 𝑥(𝑘 + 1|𝑘) + 𝑓 (𝑥(𝑘 + 1|𝑘), 𝑢(𝑘 + 1))𝑇𝑠 ,
(28)
⋮
𝑥(𝑘 + 𝑝|𝑘) = 𝑥(𝑘 + 𝑝 − 1|𝑘) + 𝑓 (𝑥(𝑘 + 𝑝 − 1|𝑘), 𝑢(𝑘 + 𝑝 − 1))𝑇𝑠 ,
where p is the predictive horizon, which determines the predictive
length of the system from instant k. 𝑘 + 1|𝑘 represents the states pre-

100
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al.
Fig. 10. Regenerative energy and SOC of the battery.
Fig. 11. Tuning horizon results.
diction of instant 𝑘 + 1 from current instant k. 𝑓 (𝑥(𝑘), 𝑢(𝑘)) = 𝑥̇ is the
gradient of system state change at time k.
3.5. Optimization costs
In order to achieve the desired performance for the regenerative
braking system, there are four cost functions developed in the model
predictive controller. The first and second cost functions are proposed
for ensuring braking safety, the third and fourth cost functions are pro-
posed for improving regeneration efficiency. They are respectively in-
troduced in the following part.
3.5.1. Total braking torque tracking
First of all, no matter what form of the braking mode, the total brak-
ing torque of in-wheel motors and hydraulic unit needs to tracking the
braking requirement of the driver, which can be calculated based on Eq.
(19). Here, the tracking cost function at sampling instant k is defined in
101
Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108
Fig. 12. Torque distribution results.
Fig. 13. Velocity-tracking performance.
a quadratic form as follows,
𝑝
∑
𝐽1 = ‖𝑇𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (𝑘) − 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝑘)‖2𝑄 . = ‖2(𝑇ℎ𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)) + 𝑇ℎ𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)
𝑖=1
+2𝑔0 (𝑇𝑚𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) + 𝑇𝑚𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)) − 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖)‖2𝑄 ,
(29)
where Ttotal (k) represents the total braking torque, includes all the hy-
draulic braking torque and motor braking torque. Q is the weighting
matric that determines the significance of J1 .
3.5.2. Coordination of front and rear braking torque
As mentioned in Section 3.1.1, the cooperative control of the front
and rear braking is critical to vehicle braking performance and safety.
During the braking process, the normal force on rear tires would transfer
to front tires, so the front and rear normal force must be considered
in the distribution design [25]. The ideal braking torque distribution
can make the front and rear wheels lock simultaneously and obtain the
maximum braking strength z equal to tire-road friction coefficient, and
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

Fig. 14. Regenerative energy and SOC of the battery. Fig. 16. Velocity-tracking performance.

Fig. 17. Regenerative energy and SOC of the battery.

Fig. 15. Torque distribution results. furthermore, the total braking force of vehicle can be described as fol-
lows,

the adhesion ratio of front and rear wheels are the same and equal to z, 𝐹𝑥 (𝑘) = 𝑧(𝑘)𝑀𝑔 = 𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘) + 𝐹𝑥𝑟 (𝑘). (34)
which are expressed as follows,
Based on Eqs. (31) to (34), the ideal braking force distribution of
𝑎 (𝑘) front and rear wheels can be derived as follows,
𝑧(𝑘) = 𝑥 = 𝜇(𝑘), (30)
𝑔 √(
𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘)
)2 𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘) 𝐿
𝐹𝑥𝑟 (𝑘) 𝑙𝑟 𝑙𝑟
𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘) 𝑓 (𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘), 𝐹𝑥𝑟 (𝑘)) = + + − + = 0, (35)
𝐹 (𝑘) 𝑀𝑔 2ℎ 𝑀𝑔 2ℎ 𝑀𝑔 ℎ
= 𝑥𝑟 = 𝑧(𝑘), (31)
𝐹𝑧𝑓 (𝑘) 𝐹𝑧𝑟 (𝑘)
where L is the total wheel base equal to (𝑙𝑓 + 𝑙𝑟 ).
𝐹𝑥𝑓 𝐹𝑥𝑟 Based on the above analysis, the cost function of front and rear brak-
where 𝐹𝑧𝑓
and 𝐹𝑧𝑟
respectively represent the adhesion ratio of front and
ing force distribution is given as follows,
rear wheels. Eqs. (25) and (26) are transformed as follows,
∑𝑝
𝑀𝑔(𝑙𝑟 − ℎ𝑧(𝑘)) 𝐹 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) 𝑙 𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)
𝐹𝑧𝑓 (𝑘) = , (32) 𝐽2 = ‖𝑓 (𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘), 𝐹𝑥𝑟 (𝑘))‖2𝑅 = ‖ 𝑥𝑟 + 𝑟 +
𝑙𝑓 + 𝑙𝑟 𝑀𝑔 2 ℎ 𝑀𝑔
𝑖=1
√
( )2
𝑀𝑔(𝑙𝑓 + ℎ𝑧(𝑘)) 𝑙𝑟 𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) 𝐿
𝐹𝑧𝑟 (𝑘) = , (33) − + ‖2𝑅 , (36)
𝑙𝑓 + 𝑙𝑟 2ℎ 𝑀𝑔 ℎ

102
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

where R is the weighting matric of J2 , 𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) and 𝐹𝑥𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) are Table 2
obtained based on Eqs. (23)–(26). It should be noted that this penalized Key parameters of electric vehicle.
term aims to make the actual front and rear braking force distribution Definition Symbol Value
close to the ideal distribution, which has certain redundancy to avoid
Vehicle mass M 1500 kg
the possible mechanical damages.
Height of vehicle c.g. h 0.25 m
Distance from c.g. to front axle lf 0.9 m
3.5.3. Energy efficiency of in-wheel motors Distance from c.g. to rear axle lr 1 m
In order to recover energy as much as possible, we design the pe- Effective radius of the tire Re 0.29 m
Reducer ratio g0 5
nalized terms respectively from two aspects of in-wheel motors and hy-
draulic unit. The energy efficiency cost function of in-wheel motors is
proposed as follows,
+‖𝑓 (𝐹𝑥𝑓 (𝑘), 𝐹𝑥𝑟 (𝑘))‖2𝑅 − ‖𝑃𝑚 (𝑘)‖𝑆 + ‖𝑃ℎ (𝑘)‖𝑇 ,
𝑝
∑
𝐽3 = −‖𝑃𝑚 (𝑘)‖𝑆 = −‖2𝜂𝑓 𝑇𝑚𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)𝜔𝑚𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) (44)
𝑖=1
+2𝜂𝑟 𝑇𝑚𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)𝜔𝑚𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)‖𝑆 , (37) subject to the system dynamics model (22a) to (27) and the control
constraints (39), (40), and the state constraint (41). Uk is the dependent
where Pm (k) is the total mechanical power of four in-wheel motors, variable of the optimal control problem, which is described as follows,
which can be calculated based on braking torque and rotary velocity
of each motor. 𝑇𝑚𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) and 𝑇𝑚𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) represent the absolute value
of front and rear braking torque of in-wheel motors. S is the weighting
matric of J3 . This cost function aims to maximize the energy recovery.
𝑢(𝑘 + 𝑝 − 1|𝑘)}, (45)

3.5.4. Energy efficiency of hydraulic unit Using the latest measurements of system states to refresh and solve
The other cost function of energy efficiency is related to the power the above optimization problem at each sampling instant, then based on
loss of hydraulic unit. The specific form is given as follows, MPC method, the first element of the optimal solution u∗ (k|k) would be
𝑝
applied to the system. This process would be repeated until k → ∞. The
∑ 2
𝐽4 = ‖𝑃ℎ (𝑘)‖𝑇 = ‖ (𝑇 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)𝜔𝑚𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) control input at sampling instant k is expressed as follows,
𝑖=1
𝑔0 ℎ𝑓
𝑢∗ (𝑘) = [1, 0, … , 0] ⋅ 𝑈 ∗ (𝑘) = [𝑇ℎ𝑓
∗
(𝑘), 𝑇ℎ𝑟
∗
(𝑘), 𝑇𝑚𝑓
∗
(𝑘), 𝑇𝑚𝑟
∗
(𝑘)]𝑇 , (46)
+𝑇ℎ𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘)𝜔𝑚𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘))‖𝑇 , (38)
It should be noted that, the measurements at each sampling instant
where Ph (k) is defined as the total mechanical power of hydraulic unit, would be the initial conditions to predict the system future dynamics.
which is calculated by braking torque and rotary velocity of each wheel. Generally, analytical expression of the above optimal control prob-
𝑇ℎ𝑓 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) and 𝑇ℎ𝑟 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) represent the absolute value of front and lem is not easily available, so it is always using the numerical methods
rear hydraulic braking torque. T is the weighting matric of J4 . This cost to solve the optimal problem. In this paper, particle swarm optimization
function aims to minimize the energy consumption due to the hydraulic (PSO) method [26], which is an iterative method for nonlinear optimiza-
braking mode. tion, is used to solve the above cost function (44).
Due to the limitation of in-wheel motors, there are several constraints In addition, how to guarantee the stability is a main research direc-
for regenerative braking system, which are described as follows, tion of MPC controlled system [27]. Generally, there are two possible
0 ≤ 𝑇𝑚𝑗 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) ≤ 𝑇𝑚𝑗,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑘), (39) approaches to achieve the stability of nonlinear model predictive con-
trol system with input constraints. The first one is to alter the setup
of the optimal problem, the cost functional and constraints, such that
1
0 ≤ 𝑇ℎ𝑗 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) ≤ 𝑇 , (40) closed loop can be stable independent of the choice of predictive hori-
4 ℎ,𝑚𝑎𝑥
zon p. Chen and Allgöwer [28] presented a quasi-infinite horizon NMPC
scheme with guaranteed stability, a quadratic terminal cost and a termi-
0 ≤ 𝜔𝑚𝑗 (𝑘 + 𝑖|𝑘) ≤ 𝜔𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , (41)
nal inequality constraint are setup to force the states with in the terminal
where Tmj and Thj represent the absolute value of motor and hydraulic region at the end of the prediction horizon. In this approach, the termi-
braking torque on each wheel. Th, max is the maximum braking torque of nal state penalty matrix and terminal region can be determined off-line,
hydraulic unit. 𝜔m, max is the maximum in-wheel motor rotary velocity. but the terminal state constraint will increase the complexity of online
Tm, max is the time-varying maximum braking torque of in-wheel motors, optimization. In order to improve the real-time performance, the other
which is calculated as follows, possible approach is employed in this paper, a suitable cost functional
⎧ and predictive horizon tuning. It should be noted that this method is not
𝑃𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥
⎪ 𝑇𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝜔𝑚𝑗 (𝑘) ≤ , rigorous theoretically.
⎪ 𝑇𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥
𝑇𝑚𝑗,𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑘) = ⎨ (42)
⎪ 𝑃𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 𝜔 (𝑘) > 𝑃𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥 , 4. Simulations and analysis
⎪ 𝜔𝑚𝑗 (𝑘) 𝑚𝑗 𝑇𝑚,𝑚𝑎𝑥
⎩
In this section, the proposed regenerative braking controller was ver-
3.6. Model predictive control law and online optimization ified under AMESim environment, in which the electric vehicle model is
close to an actual system. It consists of vehicle dynamics module, suspen-
According to the description of cost functions and constraints for sion system module, Magic Formula tire module, in-wheel motors mod-
model predictive controller, the optimal control problem about the brak- ule and a high power dynamic battery pack module. The co-simulation
ing torque distribution can be described as follows, platform is given in Fig. 7, and the main parameters of the car are listed
in Table 2.
min 𝐽 (𝑥(𝑘), 𝑈𝑘 ), (43)
𝑈𝑘 To prove the advantage of the presented braking torque distribu-
tion controller, rule-based strategy is taken as the baseline. The braking
torque ratio between front and rear axis is a fixed value of many two
𝐽 (𝑥(𝑘), 𝑈𝑘 ) = 𝐽1 + 𝐽2 + 𝐽3 + 𝐽4 = ‖𝑇𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 (𝑘) − 𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑓 (𝑘)‖2𝑄 axis vehicles. And because the rear wheels lock is more dangerous than

103
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al.
Fig. 18. Longitudinal slip ratio.
Fig. 19. Velocity tracing performance of tuning predictive horizon.
the front wheels lock, the braking ratio between front and rear axis is
normally set in a range from 6:4 to 7:3. The boundary ratio 7:3 is chosen
to compare the proposed method. Both strategies are simulated in three
different driving conditions, which include dry, wet and snow road with
different adhesion coefficient and braking strength. In the dry and wet
road driving conditions, both of rule-based strategy and MPC strategies
can track the desired velocity and ensure the braking safety, and the
regeneration efficiency of two methods are compared. In the snow road
driving condition, the adhesion coefficient is low and the rule-based
strategy can not track a relative high desired deceleration as well as the
proposed method. The regeneration efficiency and braking performance
are compared in this driving condition. In this paper, the regeneration
efficiency is defined as the ratio between regenerative energy Er and ki-
netic energy Ev at the initial moment of braking, which can be described
as follows,
𝐸
𝜉 = 𝑟,
𝐸𝑣
𝑡1
𝐸𝑟 = 𝑃𝑟 𝑑𝑡,
∫𝑡0
Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108
Table 3
Comparison results of rule-based and MPC strategies
on a dry road.
Strategy Rule-based MPC
Velocity-tracking error (m/s) 0.3 0.31
Initial kinetic energy (kJ) 833 833
Regenerative energy (kJ) 355 481
Regenerative efficiency (%) 42.58 57.68
SOC of the battery (%) 60.8 61.07
Performance improvement (%) – 34.07
1
𝐸𝑣 = 𝑀𝑉 2 , (49)
2
where t0 and t1 are the start time and the end time of a braking process.
4.1. Simulation on a dry road
In this condition, the initial vehicle speed is 120 km/h, the adhesion
coefficient of road is 0.85, the desired braking deceleration is 4.76 m/s2 ,
and the initial SOC of the battery is 60%. The simulation results are
shown as follows in Figs. 8–10.
It can be seen from Fig. 8 that vehicle speed is higher in the early
stage of the braking process, and the total braking requirement goes
beyond the work range of in-wheel motor due to the effect of its char-
acteristics. Hydraulic braking provides the remaining braking require-
ment, and it should be observed that hydraulic braking torque in MPC
strategy is smaller than that in rule-based strategy. As the vehicle speed
decreases, the braking requirement becomes smaller, in this stage, in-
wheel motors provide the whole braking requirement in MPC strategy,
and in-wheel motors and hydraulic braking provide total desired brak-
ing torque together in rule-based strategy. It is because of the constant
ratio between front and rear wheels in rule-based strategy, which limits
the space of motor braking and the possible of energy recovery. It can
be seen from Fig. 9 that the velocity-tracking performance of both meth-
ods are good. The total actual braking torque of these two methods are
almost the same, so the vehicle braking performances is also almost the
same. The total braking torque calculation formulations of two methods
are given as follows.
𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒 = 2𝑔0 (𝑇𝑚𝑓 ,𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒−𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 + 𝑇𝑚𝑟,𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒−𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 ) + 2(𝑇ℎ𝑓 ,𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒−𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 + 𝑇ℎ𝑟,𝑟𝑢𝑙𝑒−𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 ),
𝑇𝑚𝑝𝑐 = 2𝑔0 (𝑇𝑚𝑓 ,𝑚𝑝𝑐 + 𝑇𝑚𝑟,𝑚𝑝𝑐 ) + 2(𝑇ℎ𝑓 ,𝑚𝑝𝑐 + 𝑇ℎ𝑟,𝑚𝑝𝑐 ).
(50)
The comparison results of rule-based and MPC strategies are listed in
Table 3. The velocity-tracking errors in the two strategies are almost the
same. The regeneration efficiency of rule-based and MPC strategies are
respectively 42.58% and 57.68%. The regenerative efficiency of MPC
strategy has been improved by 34.07% compared to rule-based strategy.
In order to obtain a suitable predictive horizon, a large number of
simulations are carried out. Some regenerative energy and the SOC of
battery results under different predictive horizon are given in Fig. 11.
It can be seen that the value of the predictive horizon does not affect a
lot on the regeneration efficiency. The highest SOC is 61.07% as 𝑝 = 3,
which is chosen as the suitable predictive horizon in this driving condi-
tion. Since the accumulated error of the model, it has a trend that the
regeneration efficiency will become lower as the predictive horizon in-
creases. The main simulation parameters of the controller are listed in
Table 4. The weighting matrices are invariable at each sampling instant.
4.2. Simulation on a wet road
(47) In this section, a wet road with lower adhesion coefficient is selected
to be the second simulation environment. In this driving condition, the
initial vehicle speed is 90 km/h, the adhesion coefficient of road is 0.55,
(48) the desired braking deceleration is 3.13 m/s2 . The simulation results
104
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al.
Fig. 20. Longitudinal slip ratio of tuning predictive horizon.
are shown as follows in Figs. 12–14. The simulation parameters of the
controller in this driving condition are set the same as Table 4.
The simulation result of braking torque distribution is similar to the
above driving condition, the braking strength is smaller than that on a
dry road, so the braking requirement is also smaller, both of the two
strategies are fully in-wheel motor braking in the second stage.
105
Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108
Fig. 21. Test construction.
The comparison results of rule-based and MPC strategies on a wet
road are listed in Table 5. Both methods can track the desired velocity
well. The regeneration efficiency of rule-based and MPC strategies are
respectively 73.18% and 83.30%. The regenerative efficiency of MPC
strategy has been improved by 13.58% compared to rule-based strategy.
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

Fig. 22. Test platform.

Fig. 25. Regenerative energy and SOC of the battery.

Table 4
Simulation controller parameters of
dry road.

Defination Value

Maximum iterations number 40

Particles number 20
Predictive horizon 3
Qi 1
Ri 0.2
Si 2
Ti 2
Sampling instant (s) 0.01

Table 5
Comparison results of rule-based and MPC strategies
on a wet road.

Strategy Rule-based MPC

Velocity-tracking error (m/s) 0.2 0.2

Fig. 23. Torque distribution results.
Initial kinetic energy (kJ) 469 469
Regenerative energy (kJ) 343 390
Regenerative efficiency (%) 73.18 83.30
SOC of the battery (%) 60.77 60.88
Performance improvement (%) – 13.58

4.3. Simulation on a snow road

The third simulation is conducted on a snow road with a low adhe-

Fig. 24. Velocity-tracking performance.
sion coefficient. In order to compare the braking performance between
rule-based and MPC methods, a relative high desired braking deceler-
ation is set in this condition. The initial vehicle speed is 60 km/h, the
adhesion coefficient of road is 0.25, the desired braking deceleration is
2.42 m/s2 . The simulation results are shown as follows in Figs. 15–18.
It can be seen from Fig. 16 that rule-based method can track the de-
sired velocity of the former part, but not of the later part. It can also
be seen from Fig. 18 that under the rule-based method, the slip ratios
of two front wheels are about −3, and of two rear wheels are about −1
at 4.2 s, far beyond the slip ratio stable region [7]. However, with the
proposed MPC strategy, the velocity can be well tracked and the slip
ratio of four wheels are in the stable region. The comparison results of
rule-based and MPC strategies on a snow road are listed in Table 6. The
regeneration efficiency of rule-based and MPC strategies are respectively
65.98% and 83.16%. The final battery SOC of rule-based and MPC meth-

106
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

Table 6 Table 8
Comparison results of rule-based and MPC strategies Test controller parameters.
on a snow road.
Defination Value
Strategy Rule-based MPC
Maximum iterations number 40
Vehicle-tracking error (m/s) 0.65 0.16 Particles number 20
Initial kinetic energy (kJ) 208 208 Predictive horizon 3
Regenerative energy (kJ) 137 173 Control horizon 3
Regenerative efficiency (%) 65.98 83.16 Sampling instant (s) 0.01
SOC of the battery (%) 60.15 60.4
Performance improvement (%) – 165
Table 9
Test results of MPC strategy on a dry
Table 7 road.
Simulation controller parameters of
Strategy MPC
snow road.
Vehicle-tracking error (m/s) 0.17
Defination Value Initial kinetic energy (kJ) 833
Maximum iterations number 40 Regenerative energy (kJ) 498
Particles number 20 Regenerative efficiency (%) 59.79
Predictive horizon 1 SOC of the battery (%) 61.05
Qi 1
Ri 1.2
Si 0.8
Fig. 23 shows the test result of braking torque distribution,
Ti 0.8
Sampling instant (s) 0.01 Fig. 24 shows the test result of velocity tracking performance,
Fig. 25 shows the test results of regenerative energy and SOC of the
battery. The test results are listed in Table 9. These test results indicate
that the real-time control can be realized based on the proposed optimal
ods are respectively 60.15% and 60.4%. The regenerative efficiency of
control strategy.
MPC strategy has been improved by 165% compared to rule-based strat-
egy. 6. Conclusion
In this driving condition on a low adhesion coefficient snow road,
the suitable predictive horizon tuning is more important than the other In this paper, a regenerative braking torque distribution strategy is
two conditions to make sure the braking safety. A large number of sim- designed for an electric vehicle with four in-wheel motors equipped with
ulations are carried out, 𝑝 = 1 is finally chosen in this driving condition. the regenerative braking system. The controller is developed based on
Parts of the tuning results are given in Figs. 19 and 20. It can be seen MPC method and aims to achieve a better energy efficiency and braking
that, the velocity tracking performance is the best as predictive hori- performance. The braking torque distribution of front and rear wheels
zon 𝑝 = 1. The longitudinal slip ratio of four tires are in stable region as is integrated with that of hydraulic and in-wheel motor braking, which
𝑝 = 1, but not as other predictive horizons. A more accurate controller improves the possible space of energy recovery and vehicle stability
model is required of this critically safe driving condition to ensure the more than the hierarchical control structure. Moreover, the coordina-
braking safety. The main simulation parameters of the controller are tive optimization of motor and hydraulic system enhances the regen-
listed in Table 7. eration efficiency as far as possible. The proposed control strategy is
In addition, the simulation results of the first two driving conditions verified by simulations on AMESim and Simulink co-simulation plat-
indicate that as the initial vehicle speed and braking strength is low, the form. The results of the simulations demonstrate that the optimization
velocity-tracking error becomes smaller, and the regeneration efficiency of braking torque distribution makes better performance of energy re-
has been increased. The advantages of MPC strategy is more obvious covery for an electric vehicle. The regeneration efficiency and braking
under a higher adhesion coefficient road and a larger braking strength. performance are more largely improved than the rule-based regenera-
The simulation results of the third driving condition indicate that both tive braking strategy. Moreover, the effectiveness of the presented MPC
the regeneration efficiency and braking performance of MPC method strategy is illustrated by the HIL test.
are more improved than rule-based method.
Acknowledgments
5. Real-time test
This work was supported by the Projects of International Coopera-
In order to verify the performance of the automotive control system tion and Exchanges NSFC (No. 61520106008) and the National Natural
in real-time, the hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) test is carried out. The HIL Science Foundation of China (Nos. U1564207, 61503149).
test construction and platform are respectively shown as Figs. 21 and 22.
References
The entire system is composed of one MicroAutoBox from dSPACE1401,
one dSPACE1006, two host PCs and two AD/DA interface boards, [1] Ehsani M, Gao Y. Application of electrically peaking hybrid (elph) propulsion sys-
which are responsible for the data transmission between MicroAutoBox tem to a full-size passenger car with simulated design verification. IEEE Trans Veh
and dSPACE1006. The control strategy and the electric vehicle model Technol 1999;48(6):1779–87.
[2] Gao Y, Ehsani M. Electronic braking system of ev and hev—integration of regenera-
are respectively built into real-time code by the code generation tool
tive braking, automatic braking force control and abs. SAE mobilus technical papers
of MATLAB on the host PCs, and embedded into MicroAutoBox and 2001-01-2478. California: Costa Mesa; 2001.
dSPACE1006. [3] Sovran G, Blaser D. Quantifying the potential impacts of regenerative braking on
a vehicle’s tractive-fuel consumption for the u.s., european, and japanese driving
The test is carried out on a dry road driving condition, the initial
schedules. SAE mobilus technical papers 2006-01-0664. Michigan: Detroit; 2006.
vehicle speed is 120 km/h, the adhesion coefficient of road is 0.85, the [4] Lv C, Zhang J, Li Y, Yuan Y. Mode-switching-based active control of a powertrain
desired braking deceleration is 4.76 m/s2 , and the initial SOC of the system with non-linear backlash and flexibility for an electric vehicle during regen-
battery is 60%. And the particle swarm optimization method is applied erative. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part D 2015;229(11):1429–42.
[5] Ko J, Ko S, Son H, Yoo B, Cheon J, Kim H. Development of brake system and re-
to solve the optimal control problem in the HIL test. The parameters of generative braking cooperative control algorithm for automatic-transmission-based
the controller are listed in Table 8. hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2015;64(2):431–40.

107
W. Xu, H. Chen and H. Zhao et al. Mechatronics 57 (2019) 95–108

[6] Crolla DA, Cao D. The impact of hybrid and electric powertrains on vehicle dynam- [27] Mayne DQ, Rawlings JB, Rao CV, Scokaert POM. Constrained model predictive con-
ics, control systems and energy regeneration. Veh Syst Dyn 2012;50:95–109. trol: stability and optimality. Automatica 2000;36:789–814.
[7] Xu G, Xu K, Zheng C, Zhang X, Zaihid T. Fully electrified regenerative braking control [28] Chen H, Allgöwer F. A quasi-intnite horizon nonlinear model predictive control
for deep energy recovery and maintaining safety of electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Veh scheme with guaranteed stability. Automatica 1998;34(10):1205–17.
Technol 2015;65(3):1186–98.
[8] Sangtarash F, Esfahanian V, Nehzati H, Haddadi S, Bavanpour MA, Haghpanah B. Wei Xu received the B.S. degree in automation from Harbin
Effect of different regenerative braking strategies on braking performance and fuel University of Science and Technology, Harbin, China, in 2010,
economy in a hybrid electric bus employing cruise vehicle simulation. SAE interna- and received the M.S. degree in pattern recognition and in-
tional in United States 2008-01-1561; 2008. telligent system from Jilin University, Changchun, China, in
[9] Zhang J, Du W, Wang X. Development of parallel regenerative braking controller. 2015. She is currently working toward the Ph.D. degree in
Adv Mat Res 2011;219–220:1161–4. control theory and engineering in Jilin University. Her current
[10] Tanaka Y, Nakaoka H, Mizutani Y, Nakamura E. Brake control device and brake research focuses on regenerative braking system of electric ve-
control method. US Patent; 2009. hicles.
[11] Zhang J, Lv C, Gou J, Kong D. Cooperative control of regenerative braking and
hydraulic braking of an electrified passenger car. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part D
2012;226(10):1289–302.
[12] Wang B, Huang X, Wang J, Guo X, Zhu X. A robust wheel slip ratio control design
combining hydraulic and regenerative braking systems for in-wheel-motors-driven
electric vehicles. J Franklin Inst 2015;352:577–602.
Hong Chen received the B.S. and M.S. degrees in process con-
[13] Ko J, Ko S, Kim I, Hyun D, Kim H. Co-operative control for regenerative braking
trol from Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China, in 1983 and
and friction braking to increase energy recovery without wheel lock. Int J Automot
1986, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in system dynam-
Technol 2014;15(2):253–62.
ics and control engineering from the University of Stuttgart,
[14] Zhang H, Xu G, Li w, Zhou M. Fuzzy logic control in regenerative braking system
Stuttgart, Germany, in 1997. Since 1999, she has been a Pro-
for electric vehicle. Proceeding of the IEEE international conference on information
fessor in Jilin University, Changchun, China, where she cur-
and automation. China: Shenyang; 2012.
rently serves as Tang Aoqing Professor and as the Director of
[15] Kanarachos S, Alirezaei M, Jansen S, Maurice JP. Control allocation for regener-
the State Key Laboratory of Automotive Simulation and Con-
ative braking of electric vehicles with an electric motor at the front axle using
trol. Her current research interests include model predictive
the state-dependent riccati equation control technique. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part
control, optimal and robust control, nonlinear control and ap-
D 2014;228(2):129–43.
plications in mechatronic systems focusing on automotive sys-
[16] Huang X, Wang J. Model predictive regenerative braking control for
tems.
lightweight electric vehicles with in-wheel motors. Proc Inst Mech Eng, Part
D 2012;226(9):1220–32. Haiyan Zhao received the B.S. degree in automation, the M.S.
[17] Chen H. Model predictive control, 1st edition, system and control series. Beijing, and Ph.D. degree in control theory and control engineering
China: Science Press; 2013. from Jilin University, Changchun, China, in 1998, 2004 and
[18] Ren B, Chen H, Zhao H, Yuan L. MPC-based yaw stability control in in-wheel– 2007, respectively. Since 2007, she has been a lecturer in Jilin
motored ev via active front steering and motor torque distribution. Mechatronics University, Changchun, China. Her current research interests
2016;38:103–14. include vehicle stability control and state estimation of electric
[19] Maeda K, Fujimoto H, Hori Y. Four-wheel driving-force distribution method vehicles.
for instantaneous or split slippery roads for electric vehicle. AUTOMATIKA
2013;54(1):103–13.
[20] de Castro R, Araujo RE, Freitas D. Wheel slip control of evs based on slid-
ing mode technique with conditional integrators. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
2013;60(8):3256–71.
[21] Park EJ, Stoikov D, Luz LFd, Suleman A. A performance evaluation of an automo-
tive magnetorheological brake design with a sliding mode controller. Mechatronics Bingtao Ren received the B.S. degree in automation and the
2006;16. 405C416. Ph.D. degree in control theory and engineering from Jilin Uni-
[22] Rajamani R. Vehicle dynamics and control. Mechanical engineering series. 1st ed. versity, Changchun, China, in 2012 and 2017. He currently
Harlow, England: Springer; 2006. works in School of Transportation Science and Engineering,
[23] Pacejka HB. Tyre and vehicle dynamics. 2nd ed. London, UK: Elsevier; 2005. Beihang University, China.
[24] Liu W, He H, Peng J. Driving control research for longitudinal dynamics of elec-
tric vehicles with independently driven front and rear wheels. Math Probl Eng
2013;2013:1–17.
[25] Xu G, Li W, Xu K, Song Z. An intelligent regenerative braking strategy for electric
vehicles. Energies 2011;4(9):1461–77.
[26] Xu F, Chen H, Gong X, Mei Q. Fast nonlinear model predictive control on FPGA using
particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2016;63:310–21.

108