1126 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO.
3, MAY 2016
Optimal Control of Series Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Considering the Cabin Heat Demand
Jörg Gissing, Philipp Themann, Sidney Baltzer, Thomas Lichius, and Lutz Eckstein
Abstract— In series plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the engine
is decoupled from the wheels and the fuel economy is not
very sensitive to the energy management. Therefore, different
works recommend charge depletion, charge sustenance (CDCS)
strategies for vehicle implementation as they always ensure a
desirable full exploitation of the battery capacity. In contrast,
this brief illustrates great fuel saving potentials by blending
CD and CS with regard to using the engine waste heat for
cabin heating. In this way, the energy demand of the electric
heater and thus the fuel consumption are reduced significantly.
The potential is outlined by comparing the fuel consumption
of optimal blended and optimal CDCS strategies for different
boundary conditions. In this context, a novel hybrid optimization
approach is presented, which combines dynamic programming
with a genetic algorithm. Furthermore, a power to heat ratio
is deduced, which is useful to interpret the results, and might
support the design process of causal controllers considering the
cabin heat demand.
Index Terms— Dynamic programming (DP), energy manage-
ment, optimal control, passenger cabin heating, plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs).
I. I NTRODUCTION
I N THE context of sustainable individual mobility, electric
vehicles (EVs) play an important role. Due to high
costs of traction batteries (Bats), long charging times, and
lacking charging infrastructure, EVs are not yet able to
fulfill customer requirements [1]. Thus, plug-in hybrid
EVs (PHEVs) could serve as a bridging technology as
they combine the benefits of the electric and fuel-driven
powertrain [2]. PHEVs are able to reduce emissions and fuel
consumption without having a limited driving range. In the
case of a discharged Bat, the driving range is extended by the
internal combustion engine (ICE), whose operation follows
the implemented control strategy. Control strategies of PHEVs
can basically be distinguished between charge depletion,
charge sustenance (CDCS) and blended strategies. In CDCS
strategies, the Bat is first depleted. Once a predefined
state of charge (SOC) is reached, it is switched to charge
sustenance (CS) and the ICE is operated to regulate the
Manuscript received March 23, 2015; revised May 20, 2015; accepted
July 18, 2015. Date of publication September 1, 2015; date of current
version April 18, 2016. Manuscript received in final form July 27, 2015.
This work was supported by the Post-Graduate Program entitled Integrated
Energy Supply Modules for Roadbound E-Mobility through the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft. Recommended by Associate Editor S. Varigonda.
The authors are with the Institute for Automotive Engineering,
RWTH Aachen University, Aachen 52074, Germany (e-mail: gissing@ika.
rwth-aachen.de; themann@ika.rwth-aachen.de; baltzer@ika.rwth-aachen.de;
lichius@ika.rwth-aachen.de; eckstein@ika.rwth-aachen.de).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCST.2015.2468055
1063-6536 © 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Dayananda Sagar University. Downloaded on June 07,2022 at 12:18:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
SOC [3]. In contrast, blended strategies do not restrict the
ICE operation and thus might improve the overall efficiency.
Whereas in parallel and power split PHEVs the fuel economy
can be improved significantly by blended strategies [4]–[8],
in series PHEVs, the benefits are comparably small [9], [10].
In a series powertrain, the ICE is mechanically decoupled
from the wheels and can hence always be operated opti-
mally concerning emissions and fuel consumption [9], [11].
Consequently, blended strategies are only able to reduce peak
Bat loads. This improves the average Bat efficiency and
hence slightly the overall efficiency. Due to the small benefits
of blended strategies [10], CDCS strategies are favored for
vehicle implementation, as they always ensure a full exploita-
tion of the Bat capacity, which is desired in terms of
operational costs and emissions [12]–[14].
This brief and [15] and [16] extend this research by
considering engine waste heat and cabin heating. In winter
scenarios, the energy consumption for cabin heating can
outnumber the energy consumption for propulsion by far and
the all-electric range (AER) of PHEVs drastically decreases
due to electric heating. At ambient temperatures below 0 °C,
the AER drops in the new European drive cycle (NEDC)
by more than 40% [17]. Thus, in winter scenarios,
an ICE operation is requested more frequently.
CDCS strategies initially deplete the Bat and the demanded
cabin heat is generated using electric energy. Only toward the
end of the drive cycle, during CS, the waste heat of the ICE is
available for cabin heating. As toward the end of the trip the
cabin is already heated up, the heat demand decreases [18]
and the available waste heat might outnumber the heat demand
by far, which results in a fast heat up of the engine coolant
and in heat rejection via the vehicle’s radiator. By blended
strategies, the waste heat can be distributed over the trip as
demanded, and the heat stored in the ICE at the end of the
trip can be minimized. Thus, the energy consumption of the
heater is reduced and the overall efficiency is improved.
This brief is to the best of the author’s knowledge the
first work visualizing the potential of operational strategies
considering the cabin heat demand by means of global optimal
control. The potential is outlined by determining the fuel
savings of an optimal blended strategy compared with those of
an optimal CDCS strategy at different ambient temperatures
and trip lengths. In this context, a novel hybrid optimization
approach is presented, which finds the optimal control policy
considering the cabin heat demand within reasonable calcu-
lation times. It combines dynamic programming (DP) and
a genetic algorithm (GA), which uses a dynamic model for
policy evaluation.
GISSING et al.: OPTIMAL CONTROL OF SERIES PHEVs CONSIDERING THE CABIN HEAT DEMAND 1127

TABLE I
M AIN V EHICLE E QUATIONS

Fig. 1. Energy flow chart in a PHEV with a series powertrain.

The remainder of this brief is organized as follows.

Section II formulates the problem and presents the necessary
models. Section III describes the novel optimization approach.
Section IV shows the boundary and optimization conditions.
Section V presents the results. Section VI discusses the work
of this brief. Section VII concludes the main aspects of
this brief.

II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION

Fig. 1 shows the energy flow in a PHEV with a series
powertrain for a heating scenario. The inverter (Inv) and the
electric motor (EM) convert electrical energy into mechanical
energy, which is then transmitted by a gearbox (GB). The
consumed electric energy for propulsion (Pdrv ) and heat-
ing (PH ) are drawn from an intermediate circuit (IC), which
is supplied with electric energy from the Bat and/or from
the range extender. The range extender is an auxiliary power
unit consisting of an ICE, a generator (Gen), and a rectifier
(Rect) [11]. The demanded cabin heat flow Q̇ HVAC can also
be covered by different sources in the heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (HVAC) system. It is either supplied by
an electric heater PH and/or by ICE waste heat. The maximal
amount of waste heat, which can be transferred to the cabin
air flow ṁ air in the heat exchanger ( Q̇ HE ), strongly depends
on the current coolant temperature [19] and thus also on the
control strategy. Consequently, the control policy of the ICE
does not only define the electric power drawn from the Bat
for driving purposes but also the power demand of the electric
heater.
As mentioned in Section I, an optimal control strategy
fully exploits the Bat capacity and minimizes the fuel con-
sumption m f of the vehicle. The corresponding minimization
problem is formulated with
 te
Min : m f (x(t), u(t), te ) = ṁ f (x(t), u(t))dt
0 listed in Table I in a simplified way. In the actual thermal
s.t : ẋ(t) = f (x(t), u(t), Pdrv (t), Q̇ HVAC (t))
x ∈ X, u U.
In this optimal control problem, u(t) represents the
regulating variable (the power output of the ICE PICE ) and
is restricted to the admissible range U . The state of the
system x(t) is described by the SOC of the Bat and the
temperature of the ICE. x(t) is constrained to X (possible
SOC and temperature window) and is a function of the cabin
heat demand Q̇ HVAC (t), the electric power demand of the
drivetrain Pdrv (t), the regulating variable u(t), and the current
state itself. In Sections II-A–II-D, the necessary models for
determining the state functions and constraints are presented.
A. Electric Vehicle Model
In order to take into account all energy flows as shown
in Fig. 1, a holistic vehicle model has been set up [20].
The considered vehicle model is a forward looking model
with a modeled driver. The driver controls apart from the
motor torque, the ventilation mass flow ṁ Air , and the supply
air temperature in cabin with the aim of achieving comfort
temperature in the cabin’s interior (cabin ) according to
DIN 1946-3 [21], which describes the comfort temperature
as a function of the ambient temperature. The resulting heat
flow is provided in the HVAC system, which is described
in Section II-B. The heat dissipating out of the vehicle is
determined with a dynamic passenger cabin model. It includes
the different convective and radiative heat flow rates Q̇ to
and from the environment, as well as all enthalpy flows Ḣ
into and out of the cabin (see Fig. 1). The main equations
for calculating the energy demand for heating and driving are
model, all surrounding cabin masses are discretized, and for
each mass, the differential energy balance is evaluated. Conse-
(1)
quently, the surface temperature surface on the inside differs
from the one on the ambient side. The specific solar radiation
varies with the geometric exposition of the surface (dRsolar ),
the heat transfer coefficients to the ambient αambient

Authorized licensed use limited to: Dayananda Sagar University. Downloaded on June 07,2022 at 12:18:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1128
Fig. 2. (a) ICE efficiency. (b) Heat flow into the cylinder wall in terms of the fuel consumption [ Q̇ wall /(ṁ f Hu )]. (c) ICE friction map. (d) Validation of the
ICE model during the heat-up phase of the NEDC.
and to the cabin air αcabin depend on the geometric
exposition and the vehicle velocity and ventilation, and the
absorption coefficients are specific parameters of the surfaces
(αIR : thermal radiation and αsolar : solar radiation). All the
values listed in Table I refer to the Volkswagen e-up [25],
whereas the different efficiencies are fitted to the energy
consumption of 11.7 kWh/100 km in the NEDC.
B. HVAC System
The demanded heat flow by the driver Q̇ HVAC is supplied in
the HVAC system. It is defined by the product of the air mass
flow and the specific heat capacity of air multiplied with the
temperature rise within the HVAC system (in cabin −in HVAC )
Q̇ HVAC (t) = ṁ air (t)c p air (in cabin (t) − in HVAC (t)). (2)
The demanded heat flow is as far as possible provided in
the heat exchanger with waste heat of the ICE, whereas the
maximal transferable heat flow is defined with (3) according
to [19]. Thereby, the coolant temperature of the ICE is repre-
sented with ICE . The model to calculate ICE is explained
in Section II-D
Q̇ HE (t) = min(kA(ICE (t) − in HVAC (t)), Q̇ HVAC (t))
 
0.8 −1
with: kA = 1.7216/ṁ air
0.8
+ 0.2124/ṁ CF (kW/K). (3)
The heat demand, which is not covered by waste heat,
is supplied by the electric heater. The corresponding electric
power consumption is found by dividing the demanded heat
flow by the heater efficiency η H (here η H = 0.95)
PH (t) = ( Q̇ HVAC (t) − Q̇ HE (t))/η H .
In the simulations, a pure fresh air mode is considered.
Thus, the supply air temperature in HVAC is given by the
ambient temperature ambient . As in state-of-the-art range
extenders the coolant flow is governed by electric pumps [23],
the coolant flow ṁ CF is set to a constant value of 0.139 kg/s.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Dayananda Sagar University. Downloaded on June 07,2022 at 12:18:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 3, MAY 2016
C. Battery
The Bat is modeled with an equivalent circuit model accord-
ing to [24] with a constant open-circuit voltage VOC and ohmic
interior resistance Rint . The change in state of charge SȮC(t)
is defined by the division of the Bat current I by the maximum
charge C stored in the Bat
SȮC(t) = I (t)/C. (5)
By determining the Bat power at the Bat’s boundary,
SȮC(t) can be formulated with
  
SȮC(t) = −VOC + VOC 2 + 4P (t)R
Bat int /(2C Rint )
with: PBat (t) = VOC I (t) + Rint I (t)2 . (6)
The interior resistance and open-circuit voltage are chosen
in this way that the Bat efficiency adds up to 0.95 at a with-
drawn power of 20 kW. The energy content of the Bat E Bat ,
which is defined as the product of the charge capacity and the
nominal voltage of the Bat, is set to 8 kWh.
D. Range Extender
The range extender consists of three components: the ICE,
the Gen, and the Rect. Due to the low coolant temperature
and the high efficiency of the Gen and Rect, the waste heat
of these components is unused in these examinations. Thus,
detailed models are not required and they are hence modeled
with constant efficiencies (ηgen = 0.96 and ηrect = 0.97).
The engine model is map based. The corresponding maps
are shown in Fig. 2(a)–(c), where Hu represents the lower
(4) heating value of the used fuel. The heat flow into the cylinder
wall Q̇ wall , the friction torque Tfrict , as well as the engine
efficiency ηICE is determined in terms of the current ICE
temperature ICE , the rotary speed n, and the torque T . The
thermal capacity of the ICE is modeled in accordance with [29]
with an equivalent mass. The total thermal capacity of this
equivalent mass is referred to as WICE and the corresponding
GISSING et al.: OPTIMAL CONTROL OF SERIES PHEVs CONSIDERING THE CABIN HEAT DEMAND
temperature is described with ICE . The temperature is
calculated with an energy balance, as shown in (7). It balances
the heat transferred into the cylinder wall Q̇ wall , the friction
losses Q̇ fric , the radiation Q̇ rad , the convection Q̇ conv , the heat
withdrawn in the heat exchanger Q̇ HE , and the heat dissipated
in the radiator Q̇ radiator . Heat dissipates from the radiator to
the ambient if the thermostatic valve to the radiator opens
(here at ICE = 90 °C)
dICE
WICE = Q̇ wall + Q̇ fric − Q̇ conv − Q̇ rad − Q̇ HE − Q̇ radiator .
dt
(7)
The engine model is based on the quasi-static assumption,
which supposes that the fuel consumption of the engine
at the current operating point can be determined with the
static consumption at this point [26]. The model is validated
on a three-cylinder engine with measurements on a chassis
dynamometer (a peak power of 43 kW, a peak efficiency
of approximately 0.35, a swept volume of 1.0l, and an
engine mass of 86 kg [27]). The validation results are shown
in Fig. 2(d). Within the following examinations, the engine
model is scaled to a peak power of 32 kW and to a peak
efficiency of 32%, which are typical values for ICEs in range
extenders [28]. The thermal capacity of the equivalent mass
is set to 20 kJ/K. In accordance with other works concerning
operational strategies in series and power-split hybrid
EVs [30], only an operation on the torque profile is considered,
which optimizes the efficiency for a given rotary speed as
shown in Fig. 2(a) [Topt (n)]. This is assumable as the results
in [31] show that an operation very close to this profile can be
attained by a well-designed controller. Therefore, the operating
point (n and T ) is defined in terms of the ICE power PICE . For
penalizing frequent engine starts during the optimization, each
engine ignition is penalized with 24.5 mg of consumed fuel.
III. O PTIMIZATION A PPROACH
As the cost function shown in (1) cannot be optimized
analytically, a numerical solution is demanded. In this context,
the problem can be discretized and the discrete optimal control
problem can be solved with DP based on Bellman’s principle.
Thereby, not only the SOC but also, as deduced in Section II,
the ICE temperature ICE needs to be considered as a state
variable as shown in Fig. 3. Furthermore, in order to allocate
engine ignitions, which also affect the fuel consumption
(see Section II-D), additionally the ignition state (ON and OFF)
has to be considered. Due to the additional dimensions and
the curse of dimensionality [32], along with long trips, high
computational times and storage demands have to be expected.
Long trips are necessary as the engine is only ignited in the
case of trips longer than the AER. These computational issues
can be overcome by carrying out DP with an increased time
step size t, which results in a loss in optimality due to
interpolation and due to not fully allocating the dynamics
of the system. Furthermore, the obtained optimal trajectory
does not necessarily lead to the target SOC as a result of
interpolation errors. To reduce the loss in optimality and to
ensure a trajectory that leads to the target SOC, the optimal
ICE power profile attained by DP is optimized on a smaller
Authorized licensed use limited to: Dayananda Sagar University. Downloaded on June 07,2022 at 12:18:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1129
Fig. 3. Discrete state grid used by DP with possible transitions (edges). The
ignition state is not represented in this figure.
time scale by a GA in combination with a dynamic model,
which uses the power profile as the initial individual. However,
to adhere to the requirements of the dynamic model, the
power profile is smoothed before being optimized. Within
the GA, a penalty function is implemented to favor solutions
leading to the target SOC. The GA uses a maximal population
size of 200 individuals and is restricted to 1000 generations.
The variation of the control trajectory by the GA is thereby
constrained by different rules. For instance, the integrated
ICE power must be within a certain limit compared with the
sum of the previous generation. Thus, only power profiles are
evaluated, which will lead to SOC values close to the target
SOC at the end of the trip. The implemented GA selects the
best five solutions per generation and creates a new generation
from this selection by mutation and recombination. The best
one is kept always.
In the context of DP, an approach is chosen that works
forward in time. The main reason for choosing forward recur-
sion instead of the more common backward approach is that
the initial vertex is explicitly defined by the initial temperature
and SOC, whereas the end vertex is defined only by the target
SOC (see Fig. 3). Thus, several vertices have to be considered
in the first step in the case of backward recursion.
Stepping forward in time, the optimal paths to vertices
of the current stage are determined recursively. The optimal
path is memorized in the respective vertex by means of the
identifier of the previous vertex on the corresponding optimal
path. To carry out this recursion until the end of the drive
cycle, the cumulated fuel consumption to get to this vertex
is additionally stored in the vertex. In the following, the
corresponding algorithm is explained briefly.
In a first step, it is determined for each vertex of the
current stage which discrete SOC values can be attained in
the time interval t. Afterward, the requested ICE power, the
resulting fuel consumption, and the new ICE temperature are
calculated for all edges. Whereas the new SOC is an input
value for evaluating the edge, the new temperature results
from the edge itself and is thus not necessarily equal to a
grid temperature and is assigned to the closest one nearby.
With the new temperature, the new SOC, and the ignition
state, the position in the state grid and the identifier of the new
1130 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 3, MAY 2016

vertex are defined. Thus, using the optimal path to the different
source vertices, the cumulated fuel consumption of all paths
leading to a regarded vertex can be compared and the optimal
path to each new vertex is found. This path is saved in the
vertex by the identifier of the previous vertex on the respective
optimal path. All vertices not contained in any optimal path are
removed. This forward recursion is carried out until the end of
the trip and the global optimal path is found by comparing the
costs stored in all possible end vertices (see Fig. 3). The vertex
with the lowest overall fuel consumption is considered the
optimal final state, and the respective optimal path [SOCopt (t)]
is determined recursively with the identifier of the previous
vertex.
This optimization is carried out iteratively while the time
step size is reduced (from 20 to 5 s), the state grid is refined,
and the permitted SOC window is diminished with regard to
the optimal SOC profile of the previous iteration [33]. Thereby,
a state grid resolution of 500 W is supposed
SOC = 500 W · t/E Bat
ICE = 500 W · t/WICE . (8)
After the last iteration, the optimal power profile is found
from the optimal SOC profile, which is then used as the
initial individual by the GA. Within the DP, it is accounted
that the electric heater power and therewith the requested
ICE power by the regarded edge depend on the current ICE
temperature (3), (4). The fuel consumption and the waste
heat transferred to the equivalent ICE mass further do not
only correlate with the requested ICE power, but also, due to
temperature-dependent friction, with the current ICE temper-
ature (see Section II-D). The ICE temperature resulting from
the edge is found with the corresponding energy balance (7).
The proposed optimization procedure is shown by means
of a flowchart in Fig. 4. The illustrated approach reduces
the computational storage demand significantly compared with
common DP by carrying out DP iteratively and by the used
DP algorithm itself, which only saves vertices contained in
optimal paths. Dynamic effects on a smaller time scale are
also allocated in this procedure by means of GA optimization. Fig. 4. Flowchart of the optimization procedure.
As the GA is coupled to a dynamic model, the results are
a good benchmark for causal controllers that are regularly
evaluated with dynamic models. savings are determined at different ambient temperatures and
trip lengths. The considered drive cycle is a repeated Artemis
road cycle [34]. The drive cycle and the cabin heat demand at
IV. B OUNDARY AND O PTIMIZATION C ONDITIONS
different ambient temperatures are shown in Fig. 5.
The goal of this brief is to visualize the fuel saving potential
of operational strategies considering the cabin heat demand.
V. R ESULTS
This potential will be identified by comparing the fuel con-
sumption resulting from a global optimal blended to the one Fig. 6 shows the ICE temperature, the SOC, and the heat
resulting from a global optimal CDCS control. Whereas the flow, which is covered by waste heat, attained by an optimal
ICE operation in the considered CDCS strategy is restricted to CDCS policy, compared with the results by an optimal
an SOC window between 0.2 and 0.225, it is not restricted in blended control, both for different ambient temperatures
blended strategies. Only SOC values above 0.95 and below 0.2 (x: −10 °C and y: 0 °C) and drive cycle durations (1: 4000 s
are not permitted. Due to the restricted SOC window, CDCS and 2: 7000 s). Thereby, an initial SOC of 0.9 (SOCinitial)
strategies, despite being optimized, do not allow one to fully and a target SOC of 0.21 (SOCend ) are supposed. Regarding
allocate the potential of operational strategies considering the optimal blended control, the ICE temperature as well as the
cabin heat demand. Thus, if the fuel savings by blended control SOC profile is almost identical for the shorter trip for both
increase with the heat demand, the potential is proved. The fuel illustrated ambient temperatures (scenarios 1x and 1y).

Authorized licensed use limited to: Dayananda Sagar University. Downloaded on June 07,2022 at 12:18:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
GISSING et al.: OPTIMAL CONTROL OF SERIES PHEVs CONSIDERING THE CABIN HEAT DEMAND 1131

Fig. 5. (a) Velocity profile of the Artemis road cycle. (b) Cabin heat flow
simulated for repeated Artemis road cycles at different ambient temperatures.

Thereby, the ICE operation shows a strong correlation with

the heat demand. The ICE temperature is almost constant
throughout the trip, whereas the waste heat and thus the
engine operation follow the cabin heat demand [see Fig. 6(b)].
As the heat demand cannot fully be covered by waste heat
in scenarios 1x, 1y, and 2x [see Fig. 6(b) and (d)], optimal
blended control prevents heat rejection via the radiator
(thermostat does not open). Furthermore, at the end of the
trip, the ICE is turned OFF in order to reduce the thermal
energy stored in the ICE [see Fig. 6(c) and (f)]. In scenario 2y
(7000 s and 0 °C), the overall waste heat outnumbers the cabin
heat demand. Thus, optimal blended control does not prevent
overheating of the coolant. Instead, the ICE temperature
is rised quickly in order to supply the heat demand with
waste heat right from the beginning and hence reduce the
energy consumption of the heater. This is achieved by a high
average engine power, which results in an increase in SOC
at the beginning [Fig. 6(d)]. As the increase in the SOC is
accompanied with charging losses, it can be deduced that
covering the heat demand has to be prioritized compared with
reducing Bat losses from an efficiency point of view.
In contrast, the optimal CDCS strategy first depletes the Bat.
The engine is only ignited below an SOC of 0.225 to sustain
the charge level (see Fig. 6). Thereby, the Bat depletes faster
at −10 °C than at 0 °C due to the increased heat demand and
the correlating electric energy consumption of the heater. Due
to the concentrated operation of the ICE during CS, the waste
heat outnumbers the heat demand and the ICE overheats in
scenarios 1y (4000 s and 0 °C), 2x (7000 s and −10 °C), and
2y (7000 s and 0 °C) [see Fig. 6(c) and (f)]. In scenario 1x
(4000 s and −10 °C), overheating is avoided due to the higher
average heat demand, which is higher than in scenario 2x due
to the higher trip length and the decreasing cabin heat demand
with respect to time, as shown in Fig. 5(b).
Comparing optimal CDCS and optimal blended control,
fuel savings are achieved in scenarios 1x, 1y, and 2x by
reducing the amount of thermal energy stored in the ICE at
the end of the trip. In scenarios 1y and 2x, additional heat
rejection via the radiator is avoided, whereas in scenario 2y,
heat rejection can only be minimized.
Fig. 6. (a) and (d) SOC, (c) and (f) ICE temperature, and (b) and (e) amount
of used waste heat over time for repeated Artemis road cycles (a)–(c) 4000 s
and (d)–(f) 7000 s resulting from global optimal CDCS strategies and from
global optimal blended strategies.
Fig. 7 shows the absolute and relative fuel savings for the
different scenarios (1x, 1y, 2x, and 2y) as well as for further
ambient temperatures and drive cycle durations. Without any
heat demand, savings by blended control are only attained
by smoothing the Bat load. Hence, the Bat and the overall
efficiency are improved. The corresponding fuel savings are
small compared with the savings achieved by operating the
engine considering the heat demand. The greatest absolute
savings are obtained at an ambient temperature of 0 °C,
whereas the relative fuel savings decrease toward higher trip
lengths as the possible scope for operating the ICE within
the different operating strategies converge, and the difference
between the drive cycle duration and the CS period divided
by the drive cycle duration converges toward zero.
Not regarding the length of the driving period, the relative
fuel savings are apparently a function of how well the waste
heat of the ICE fits to the heat demand. This is a function
of different parameters (mainly, Bat capacity, trip length, and
ambient temperature), which can be evaluated by comparing
the power to heat ratio (PHR) of the ICE (PHRICE ) to the PHR

Authorized licensed use limited to: Dayananda Sagar University. Downloaded on June 07,2022 at 12:18:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1132 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 24, NO. 3, MAY 2016

Fig. 8. Difference PHR between the PHR of the drive cycle and the
PHR of the ICE in terms of the cycle duration with regard to different ambient
temperatures.

regarding different user scenarios and might be helpful in the

design process of causal controllers considering the cabin heat
demand.

Fig. 7. Absolute and relative fuel savings by blended strategies considering
different ambient conditions and drive cycle durations.
of the drive cycle (PHRdc ). The PHR of the ICE is defined by

PICE
PHRICE = dt
t Q̇ wall + Q̇ fric − Q̇ conv − Q̇ rad
0.3
 
PICE /ṁ f Hu
= dt
t Q̇ wall /ṁ f Hu + ( Q̇ fric − Q̇ conv − Q̇ rad )/ṁ f Hu


0.16 ≈0
≈ 1.9. (9)
According to Fig. 2, this value can be estimated for efficient
engine regions with approximately 1.9 (see Section II-D). For
determining the PHR of the ICE, it is assumed that the heat
generation by friction has approximately the same magnitude
as the heat loss due to convection and radiation. In contrast,
the PHR of the dc is not constant and it much more depends on
the drive cycle [Pdrv (t)], the ambient conditions [ Q̇ HVAC (t)],
and the usable Bat capacity (E bat usable ), as shown in
VI. D ISCUSSION
The results show that by considering the heat demand in the
operational strategy, great savings in fuel consumption have to
be expected. These can add up to more than 40%. Thus, when
using waste heat of the ICE for cabin heating, CDCS strategies
cannot be recommended for vehicle implementation, which
contrasts the results in [10], where the potential of optimal
blended strategies is evaluated in a similar manner without
considering the cabin heat demand.
The proposed optimization approach, which combines
DP and a GA coupled with a dynamic model, seems to
be a good tool to determine optimal control trajectories
with different constraints within reasonable calculation times.
Within the DP optimization, the temperature as an additional
state variable is crucial. This contrasts the results in [35]
regarding thermal management strategies for PHEVs. In [35],
the cabin heat demand is not considered, and it is concluded
that due to the small benefits of the additional state during
the optimization, it might be sufficient to use temperature-free
models. In contrast, the presented results show that the optimal
operation of the ICE is mainly defined by the ICE temperature.
The most advantageous control strategy optimizes the ICE
 
 temperature profile in such a manner that the heat demand
t Pdrv (t) dt − E Bat usable
PHRdc = max 0,
imposes the need for the temperature as a second state variable
t Q̇ HVAC (t) dt
with: E Bat usable = E Bat (SOCinitial − SOCend ).
In this context, the difference between the PHR of the drive
cycle and the PHR of the ICE (PHR = PHR dc − PHRICE )
is an indicator of how well the waste heat of the ICE fits
to the heat demand of the drive cycle. The difference PHR
is shown in Fig. 8 for different cycle durations and ambient
temperatures. The closer the difference is to zero (see Fig. 8),
the better the waste heat fits to the head demand. If the
difference is greater than zero, the waste heat of the ICE
will exceed the heat demand in the respective drive cycle
and overheating of the ICE cannot be prevented with blended
control (see Figs. 6 and 8). By comparing Figs. 7 and 8,
it is found that the closer the difference is to zero, the
higher the relative savings are. Thus, the PHR turns out to
be useful for analyzing the potential of blended strategies
is as far as possible covered with waste heat, which strongly
during the optimization.
(10)
Concerning the optimization method, the calculation time
can probably be reduced further by approximate models
(see [36]) or with numerical methods like shooting methods
(see [37]). Besides, several numerical methods have been
developed to consider the state constraints during the optimiza-
tion with the aim of reducing calculation time (see [38], [39]).
As calculation time had minor importance in these exami-
nations compared with accuracy, such approaches were not
considered within this brief. The presented results as well as
the introduced PHR will be useful for evaluating and designing
causal controllers considering the cabin heat.
VII. C ONCLUSION
This brief demonstrates the fuel saving potential of
operational strategies considering the cabin heat demand.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Dayananda Sagar University. Downloaded on June 07,2022 at 12:18:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
GISSING et al.: OPTIMAL CONTROL OF SERIES PHEVs CONSIDERING THE CABIN HEAT DEMAND
The potential is illustrated by comparing the fuel consumption
of optimal CDCS operation to the one resulting from an
optimal blended control. Whereas the fuel savings by blended
strategies are consistent with those of previous works that
were found to be comparably small at no cabin heat demand
(smaller than 7%), the potential strongly rises with demanded
cabin heat. The fuel savings can add up to 40%. To determine
the global optimal control, a novel optimization approach has
been introduced, which allows, despite the introduction of the
ICE temperature as an additional state variable, reasonable
calculation times. It combines an efficient DP algorithm
with a GA coupled to a dynamic model. Carrying out DP,
computational time and memory space are kept to a minimum
as the time step size could be increased and the amount of
saved vertices is minimized. Furthermore, a new variable,
the PHR, has been introduced, which allows predicting the
potential of blended strategies in terms of the user scenario
and the Bat capacity. The PHR will be beneficial for designing
causal controllers considering the cabin heat demand.
R EFERENCES
[1] K. Lebeau, J. Van Mierlo, P. Lebeau, O. Mairesse, and C. Macharis,
“Consumer attitudes towards battery electric vehicles: A large-scale
survey,” Int. J. Electr. Hybrid Vehicles, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 28–41, 2013.
[2] A. Ajanovic, “Recent developments in electric vehicles for passenger
car transport,” World Acad. Sci., Eng., Technol., vol. 75, pp. 37–41,
Mar. 2013.
[3] S. J. Moura, D. S. Callaway, H. K. Fathy, and J. L. Stein, “Tradeoffs
between battery energy capacity and stochastic optimal power manage-
ment in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” J. Power Sour., vol. 195, no. 9,
pp. 2979–2988, 2010.
[4] H. Yu, M. Kuang, and R. McGee, “Trip-oriented energy management
control strategy for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans.
Control Syst. Technol., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1323–1336, Jul. 2014.
[5] S. Di Cairano, D. Bernardini, A. Bemporad, and I. V. Kolmanovsky,
“Stochastic MPC with learning for driver-predictive vehicle control and
its application to HEV energy management,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1018–1031, May 2014.
[6] L. Johannesson, M. Asbogard, and B. Egardt, “Assessing the potential
of predictive control for hybrid vehicle powertrains using stochastic
dynamic programming,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 8, no. 1,
pp. 71–83, Mar. 2007.
[7] S. G. Wirasingha and A. Emadi, “Classification and review of control
strategies for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 111–122, Jan. 2011.
[8] P. B. Sharer, A. Rousseau, D. Karbowski, and S. Pagerit, “Plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle control strategy: Comparison between EV and charge-
depleting options,” in Proc. SAE World Congr. Exhibit., 2008, pp. 1–5.
[9] A. Sciarretta and L. Guzzella, “Control of hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE
Control Syst., vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 60–70, Apr. 2007.
[10] R. M. Patil, Z. Filipi, and H. K. Fathy, “Comparison of supervisory
control strategies for series plug-in hybrid electric vehicle powertrains
through dynamic programming,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 502–509, Mar. 2014.
[11] H. Tschöke, “Range extender—Definition, anforderungen,
lösungsmöglichkeiten,” Motortechnische Zeitschrift, vol. 73, no. 6,
pp. 510–515, 2012.
[12] C. Zhang and A. Vahidi, “Route preview in energy management of
plug-in hybrid vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol., vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 546–553, Mar. 2012.
[13] M. P. O’Keefe and T. Markel, “Dynamic programming applied to inves-
tigate energy management strategies for a plug-in HEV,” in Proc. 22nd
Int. Battery, Hybrid, Fuel Cell Electr. Vehicle Symp. Exhibit. (EVS-22),
2006, pp. 1–15.
[14] M. Bassett, J. Hall, T. Cains, and M. Warth, “Fahrzeugintegration eines
range-extender-antriebs,” Motortechnische Zeitschrift, vol. 73, no. 11,
pp. 852–856, 2012.
[15] J. Gissing et al., “Operational strategy for a series hybrid city bus in
consideration of the dynamic heat demand,” in Proc. 21st Aachen Colloq.
Automobile Engine Technol., 2012, pp. 827–848.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Dayananda Sagar University. Downloaded on June 07,2022 at 12:18:17 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1133
[16] S. Baltzer, J. Gissing, P. Jeck, T. Lichius, and L. Eckstein, “Integration
of micro-CHP units into BEVs—Influence on the overall efficiency,
emissions and the electric driving range,” in Proc. IEEE Intell. Vehicle
Symp., Jun. 2014, pp. 1193–1198.
[17] M. Konz, N. Lemke, S. Försterling, and M. Eghtessad, “Spezifische
Anforderungen an das Heiz-Klimasystem elektromotorisch
angetriebener Fahrzeuge,” FAT-Schriftenreihe, no. 233, 2011.
[18] M. Jäger and J. Gissing, “Kühlsystementwicklung und Wärmeman-
agement für PlugIn-Hybridfahrzeuge,” Forschungsvereinigung Antrieb-
stechnik e.V., Frankfurt, Germany, Final Rep. FVA 635, 2012.
[19] H. Großmann, Pkw-Klimatisierung. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag,
2013.
[20] C. Bouvy, S. Baltzer, P. Jeck, J. Gissing, T. Lichius, and L. Eckstein,
“Holistic vehicle simulation using Modelica—An application on thermal
management and operation strategy for electrified vehicles,” in Proc. 9th
Int. Modelica Conf., 2012, pp. 264–270.
[21] DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Raumlufttechnik—
Teil 3: Klimatisierung von Personenkraftwagen und Lastkraftwagen,
document DIN 1946-3, 2006.
[22] Volkswagen e-Up. [Online]. Available: http://www.volkswagen.de
[23] J. Andert, E. Köhler, J. Niehues, and G. Schürmann, “KSPG range
extender—A new pathfinder to electromobility,” MTZ Worldwide,
vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 12–18, 2012.
[24] X. Hu, S. Li, and H. Peng, “A comparative study of equivalent circuit
models for Li-ion batteries,” J. Power Sour., vol. 198, pp. 359–367,
Jan. 2012.
[25] D. Lejsek, A. Kulzer, A. Kufferath, G. Hohenberg, and M. Bagende,
“Berechnung des Wandwärmeübergangs im Motorhochlauf
von Di-Ottomotoren,” Motortechnische Zeitschrift, vol. 71, no. 4,
pp. 250–257, 2010.
[26] C.-C. Lin, H. Peng, J. W. Grizzle, and J.-M. Kang, “Power management
strategy for a parallel hybrid electric truck,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst.
Technol., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 839–849, Nov. 2003.
[27] P. Gebhard et al., “Ottomotoren-Baureihe für Opel Corsa, Agila und
Astra,” Motortechnische Zeitschrift, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 170–178,
2004.
[28] B. Mahr, M. Bassett, J. Hall, and M. Warth, “Entwicklung Eines
Effizienten und Kompakten Range-Extender-Motors,” Motortechnische
Zeitschrift, vol. 72, no. 10, pp. 738–747, 2011.
[29] Y. Schumeyko, O. Antoshkiv, Y. Puillandre, and H. P. Berg, “Simulation
eines Motorwarmlaufs im neuen europäischen Fahrzyklus (NEFZ),” in
Proc. Wärmemanagement Kraftfahrzeugs V, 2006, pp. 26–37.
[30] N. Kim, S. Cha, and H. Peng, “Optimal control of hybrid electric vehi-
cles based on Pontryagin’s minimum principle,” IEEE Trans. Control
Syst. Technol., vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 1279–1287, Sep. 2011.
[31] S. Di Cairano, W. Liang, I. V. Kolmanovsky, M. L. Kuang, and
A. M. Phillips, “Power smoothing energy management and its applica-
tion to a series hybrid powertrain,” IEEE Trans. Control Syst. Technol.,
vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 2091–2103, Nov. 2013.
[32] W. B. Powell, Approximate Dynamic Programming. Hoboken, NJ, USA:
Wiley, 2011.
[33] H.-G. Wahl and F. Gauterin, “An iterative dynamic programming
approach for the global optimal control of hybrid electric vehicles
under real-time constraints,” in Proc. IEEE Intell. Vehicles Symp. (IV),
Jun. 2013, pp. 592–597.
[34] M. Andre, “Real-world driving cycles for measuring cars pollutant
emissions—Part A: The ARTEMIS European driving cycles,” Inst. Nat.
Recherche Transports Leur Sécurité, France, Lyon, Tech. Rep. INRETS-
LTE-0411, 2004.
[35] D. Maamria, F. Chaplais, N. Petit, and A. Sciarretta, “Numerical optimal
control as a method to evaluate the benefit of thermal management
in hybrid electric vehicles,” in Proc. 19th IFAC World Congr., 2014,
pp. 4807–4812.
[36] D. Maamria, F. Chaplais, N. Petit, and A. Sciarretta, “On the impact of
model simplification in input constrained optimal control: Application
to HEV energy-thermal management,” in Proc. IEEE 53rd Annu. Conf.
Decision Control (CDC), Dec. 2014, pp. 2529–2535.
[37] L. Serrao et al., “Open issues in supervisory control of hybrid electric
vehicles: A unified approach using optimal control methods,” Oil Gas
Sci. Technol.-Rev. IFP Energies Nouvelles, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 23–33,
2013.
[38] T. Utz, S. Rhein, and K. Graichen, “Transformation approach to con-
straint handling in optimal control of the heat equation,” in Proc. 19th
IFAC World Congr., 2014, pp. 9135–9140.
[39] K. Graichen, A. Kugi, N. Petit, and F. Chaplais, “Handling constraints
in optimal control with saturation functions and system extension,” Syst.
Control Lett., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 671–679, 2010.