ETH Library

Battery lifetime extension through

optimal design and control of
traction and heating systems in
hybrid drivetrains

Journal Article

Author(s):
Widmer, Fabio ; Ritter, Andreas ; Duhr, Pol ; Onder, Christopher H.

Publication date:
2022-11

Permanent link:
https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000563647

Rights / license:
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

Originally published in:

eTransportation 14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2022.100196

This page was generated automatically upon download from the ETH Zurich Research Collection.
For more information, please consult the Terms of use.
 eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

eTransportation
journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/etransportation

Battery lifetime extension through optimal design and control of traction

and heating systems in hybrid drivetrains
Fabio Widmer *, Andreas Ritter , Pol Duhr , Christopher H. Onder
Institute for Dynamic Systems and Control, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, we investigate the optimal design and control of an integrated energy and thermal management
Energy and thermal management system (IETMS) of a battery-assisted trolley bus that is subject to minimum battery lifetime requirements.
IETMS Therefore, we jointly optimize both the control trajectories of the traction and the heating systems and the design
Optimal control and sizing
of the thermal energy buffer. We further analyze the resulting Pareto fronts which characterize the trade-off
Battery health
Electric drivetrain
between the battery lifetime and the energy consumption. This holistic approach fills a gap in the literature
Public transport published, namely the formulation of an optimization problem that combines component sizing with a battery-
health-aware IETMS. While the model derived allows the formulation of a convex optimal control problem for a
given vehicle design, the combined design and control problem is non-convex. Therefore, we perform grid
searches within a reasonable subset of the design space and show that the problem is smooth, has only one
stationary point, and that the solver converges to the optimal solution even for the simultaneous, non-convex
problem formulation. We further present a case study showing that, if an IETMS is used, a realistic bus ser­
vice life without battery replacement can be achieved with a reduction of energy consumption of up to 7% on
some driving missions, compared to a heuristic heating strategy. If the design of the thermal system is co-
optimized, battery lifetime can be extended further by up to 15% without affecting the amount of energy
consumed. In summary, our study reveals a potential to make electric transportation more efficient in terms of
both energy and costs based on a holistic consideration of battery-health-aware IETMS with optimized compo­
nent dimensioning.

1. Introduction
1.1. Context and motivation
In light of more and more countries committing themselves to target
net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the future [1], an increasing
pressure for research on future mobility solutions is felt in the road
transport sector. Indeed, road transport is responsible for over 10% of
global CO2 emissions [2]. A reduction in these CO2 emissions can be
achieved through new drivetrain technologies. In this context, battery
electric vehicles (BEVs) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) are prom­
ising candidates, as they enable a reduction in energy demand and thus
CO2 emissions through a higher efficiency of their propulsion system
[3]. Electric propulsion offers particularly great advantages in urban
transportation due to the low average velocity and the frequent stops of
the vehicles, both of which lead to a very high potential for recuperation
of braking energy [3]. Additionally, electric propulsion can diminish
local environmental impacts in city centers, such as noise and pollutant
emissions. However, electrification of road transport also faces several
challenges, two of which we address in this paper.
First, the contribution of the heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning (HVAC) system to the overall energy consumption can be
significantly higher than that of vehicles relying on combustion engines.
This effect is particularly relevant in heating scenarios for BEVs since
electric motors generate little waste heat. In this case, additional battery
energy needs to be used to provide the required heat, which can severely
impair the range of BEVs [4]. As a countermeasure, heat pumps are
sometimes used in electric vehicles, and research is pursuing intelligent
HVAC control approaches that are increasingly combined with the
control strategies of the traction system. The authors of a recent review
paper suggest to call such combined control approaches integrated en­
ergy and thermal management systems (IETMSs), which is the term we
also use throughout this paper [5]. Those authors state that the addi­
tional degrees of freedom offered by the HVAC systems allow the control

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: fawidmer@idsc.mavt.ethz.ch (F. Widmer).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2022.100196
Received 21 December 2021; Received in revised form 30 June 2022; Accepted 11 July 2022
Available online 2 August 2022
2590-1168/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
F. Widmer et al.
algorithms to further improve the overall energy efficiency. In this re­
gard, public transport offers a particularly large potential since traction
and HVAC systems contribute about equally to the total energy demand
in winter conditions [6].
The second challenge faced by BEVs and HEVs is the battery degra­
dation. Although battery prices have been decreasing rapidly in recent
years, they are still a major cost driver in BEVs [7]. Moreover, they are
the component with the highest negative impact on the ecological
footprint of BEVs [8] and their large mass can significantly increase the
propulsion energy demand, particularly in urban driving scenarios [3].
Due to the large economical and ecological impact of batteries, there is
great interest in minimizing their size while maximizing their lifetime to
avoid costly replacements. Hence, researchers are working to implement
energy management systems (EMSs) that consider battery health and
actively seek to minimize or limit battery degradation, as in Ref. [9], for
instance. This can be accomplished by avoiding operating conditions
which are particularly harmful to the battery, such as high power peaks
or extreme temperatures.
In order to work towards the overarching goal of improving vehicle
efficiency, not only the vehicle operation, but also the vehicle design
should be considered. However, the performance of different vehicle
designs can be heavily influenced by the respective control algorithm
and vice versa [10]. Due to this close coupling of vehicle operation and
design, a combined consideration is necessary [11].
In the context of all of these challenges, this paper proposes the
optimization of a battery-health-aware IETMS that is combined with a
framework for optimal component sizing. We illustrate our approach on
a public transport vehicle since these challenges are particularly sig­
nificant for vehicles of this type, and thus, the potential advantages are
the largest. However, we are convinced that such a holistic consider­
ation is advantageous for other vehicle technologies as well.
1.2. Literature
The literature related to this manuscript can be grouped into three
pillars, i.e., battery-health-aware EMS, vehicle design optimization, and
IETMS, as shown in a Venn diagram in Fig. 1.
Battery-health-aware EMSs deal with the task of planning or con­
trolling the battery charge level while considering battery degradation.
The trade-off that arises in HEVs between the two conflicting goals of
energy consumption and battery degradation can be studied by formu­
lating an optimization problem which has been solved offline using
Pontryagin’s minimum principle (PMP) [12], dynamic programming
(DP) [13–15], or convex programming [16]. For online applications, the
well-known equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS) has
been extended to include the battery state of health (SOH) for various
drivetrain configurations, e.g., Refs. [9,17,18]. If constraints need to be
Fig. 1. The literature body related to this manuscript, grouped into typical
areas of research and illustrated in a Venn diagram. The shaded area represents
the literature gap identified and addressed in this paper.
2
eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196
considered explicitly, the optimization problem has been solved on a
receding horizon using model predictive control (MPC) [19,20].
Vehicle design and control need to be jointly optimized since the
performance of a specific vehicle design is strongly influenced by the
respective vehicle control system [10]. There are excellent review pa­
pers for this joint consideration, e.g., Refs. [11,21]. In both articles,
three categories are distinguished among the methods that enable
optimal designs, i.e., “iterative”, “nested” (or “bi-level” [21]), and
“simultaneous” approaches. In the literature, mostly “nested” [10,22]
and “simultaneous” approaches [23–25] have been applied.
The approaches suggested for a combined consideration of both
traction and thermal energy flows are summarized in the review paper
[5]. The authors suggest the acronym IETMS for such systems, which we
also use throughout this paper. In other publications, terms like “holis­
tic” energy management [26] or complete vehicle energy management
(CVEM) [27] have been suggested. For an offline optimization of IETMS,
DP is frequently used [28,29]. To overcome the “curse of dimension­
ality”, i.e., the poor scaling of DP when many dynamic state variables are
to be considered for complex systems, dual decomposition and horizon
splitting has been suggested [27]. For online feedback control, early
research follows heuristic approaches [30,31], while more recently,
researchers have based their controller development on optimal control
theory [32] or game theory [33].
Other studies identify and demonstrate the potential of combining
the above research streams. The following two sections examine these
research directions in more detail.
1.2.1. Battery-health-aware vehicle design optimization
Assuming certain simplifications, a reasonable battery-health-aware
vehicle design can be obtained without the use of optimization tools, e.
g., by exhaustively comparing all commercially available options [34] or
by assuming simple (dis)charging patterns that allow the battery
replacement strategies for a range of battery sizes to be determined [35].
When “nested” optimization approaches are chosen, derivative-free
algorithms are mostly used in the outer loop, for example, genetic al­
gorithms [36]. If the design space is low-dimensional, grid search ap­
proaches are also possible [37]. In the inner loop, DP [37] or PMP [38]
are frequently used to optimize the control strategy. Other options
include, for example, a wavelet decomposition to isolate certain fre­
quency components of the power request for a hybrid energy storage
system [36].
Using “simultaneous” optimization, approximate results of the
optimal solution can be obtained by optimizing parameters of heuristic
controllers. This is frequently accomplished using genetic algorithms
[39,40]. To calculate optimal control trajectories and the optimal design
in a joint fashion, convex programming is the method of choice. This
concept has been applied to classical HEVs [41], to compare various
energy storage solutions [42], or to analyze the operation of plug-in
HEVs, with a focus on the depth of discharge (DOD) [43].
1.2.2. Battery-health-aware IETMS
Although some of the publications mentioned above have identified
the potential of IETMS to reduce battery degradation, battery aging has
not explicitly been considered. If battery health is considered when
optimizing auxiliary loads, it can either be done explicitly, e.g., by
extending a cost function with respective terms, or implicitly, by trying
to prevent operating conditions known to be detrimental for battery
health.
Without considering a specific battery degradation model, the bat­
tery lifetime can be extended by reducing the maximum battery power
[44] or cell temperature fluctuations [45] in an ECMS formulation; by
penalizing battery power variations in the objective function of an
optimization problem which is then solved with DP [46]; or by directly
minimizing battery losses in an optimization problem solved with PMP
[47].
More recent research aims at explicitly taking battery degradation
F. Widmer et al.
into account when optimizing auxiliary consumers. For example, convex
programming is used to formulate the problem of offline trajectory
optimization for a hybrid truck with refrigerated semi-trailer [48]. To
enable a quick solution of the problem, it is then divided into various
subproblems using dual decomposition. For online applications, MPC
may be used to jointly control the heating of the battery and the pas­
senger compartment [49].
1.3. Research statement
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, vehicle design optimization in
combination with an IETMS (shaded region in Fig. 1) has not yet been
investigated by the research community, neither with nor without
consideration of battery aging. This claim is supported in the recent
review paper by Wei et al. [50]. Given the large potential advantages of
an IETMS in terms of battery life, as recognized by many researchers, we
suggest to combine all three aspects, i.e., to optimize the vehicle design
in terms of its thermal systems based on a battery-health-aware IETMS.
For this purpose, we study an articulated battery-assisted trolley bus
of 18.7 m length as schematically shown in Fig. 2. This vehicle type is
ideal in the context of this work for two reasons: First, as mentioned
earlier, HVAC consumption is particularly large in public transport.
Second, battery aging is a key issue in this application. Due to high
acquisition costs and weight of the batteries, typically the smallest
possible battery that is able to fulfill all grid-free driving and emergency
grid autonomy requirements is installed. Being able to still meet the high
requirements on service life and high kilometric performance, both of
which lead to potentially fast battery aging, is thus a challenging task.
Since the battery-assisted trolley bus has both an energy source (the
grid) and an energy buffer (the battery), its drivetrain can be considered
a hybrid drivetrain. In fact, it is akin to a series HEV, where an engine-
generator unit takes the place of the grid to recharge the battery.
However, since the drivetrain of the battery-assisted trolley bus does not
include an internal combustion engine, it faces the problem of a lack of
an abundant heat source, which is typical of BEVs. The HVAC system
consists of a heat pump and an electrically heated water circuit, both
used to ensure the thermal comfort of passengers and the driver. The
combination of these systems results in a coupled system with three
Fig. 2. Schematic overview of the battery-assisted trolley bus under consider­
ation. The overhead direct current (DC) grid transmits energy from the feed
point to the bus via the DC-DC converter. The battery serves as an energy buffer
to enable a grid-free operation. The braking resistor can be used to dissipate
excess recuperation energy. The air in the passenger compartment is heated by
a heat pump, which extracts heat from the ambient air, and by the electrically
heated water (shown in red) via an additional heat exchanger. All other aux­
iliaries (infotainment system, lights, etc.) are summarized in “Others”. Air paths
are shown in blue, electric connections are shown in green. The corresponding
mathematical symbols are shown in Fig. 3. The vertical dashed line symbolizes
the system boundary: Everything to the right of this line is considered a
disturbance to the system. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
3
eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196
degrees of freedom, which can be used to optimize both energy effi­
ciency and battery lifetime. To show the potential advantages of a
coupling of the vehicle design task with a battery health-aware IETMS,
we analyze a winter scenario where cabin heating is needed. The heating
water can thus be considered a thermal buffer for short-term energy
storage. We assume that similar advantages can be expected if any other
thermal buffer (e.g., cabin cooling in summer or a refrigerated freight
compartment) is used.
1.4. Contribution
Our contribution is twofold. First, we formulate a combined control
and sizing optimization problem for the battery-health-aware IETMS of
a hybrid-electric drivetrain. We thus fill the gap in the literature iden­
tified above. The corresponding problem formulation is thoroughly
studied and reveals the fact that the optimal control problem (OCP) for a
given vehicle design is convex, but the combined control and sizing
problem is not. By solving the combined problem in a nested manner and
performing a grid search over the parameter space, we show that the
simultaneous approach indeed converges to the global optimum. Sec­
ond, we conduct a case study on three different driving missions. With a
detailed comparison of the resulting Pareto fronts between energy
consumption and achievable battery lifetime, we quantify the advan­
tages of a joint consideration of a battery-health-aware IETMS over
optimizations that do not consider battery health or auxiliary loads. We
also show that a joint optimization of component dimensions can further
improve the overall system’s energy efficiency.
1.5. Paper structure
The remainder of this text is structured as follows: In section 2, the
mathematical models of all subsystems of the vehicle are presented. The
driving missions used for the subsequent analyses are presented in sec­
tion 3. The OCP for a given vehicle design is formulated in section 4. The
combined control and sizing problem is then formulated in section 5. In
section 6, the results that correspond to an optimal vehicle design and
the results for a given vehicle design are compared to a “baseline”
strategy that features a heuristic heating controller. Finally, section 7
concludes the paper and presents an outlook for future research. For
convenience, Appendix A provides a complete list of all mathematical
symbols used throughout this paper. Appendices B and C show a more
detailed description of the battery degradation model and the nonlinear
program (NLP) implementation, respectively.
2. Mathematical model
The battery-assisted trolley bus under consideration is powered via
an overhead electric network. Additionally, it can store energy in a
battery to enable off-grid electric operation, which in conventional
trolley buses requires a diesel-powered generator. Due to the unidirec­
tional DC-DC converter, energy cannot be fed back into the grid. Thus,
the drivetrain is topologically very similar to a series-hybrid drivetrain,
where an engine-generator unit takes the place of the grid to recharge
the battery. The key vehicle parameters of the bus are listed in Table 1.
Table 1
Most relevant vehicle parameters of the battery-assisted trolley bus under
consideration. A complete list of the model parameters is given in Appendix A.
Description Value
Curb weight mempty 18.8 t
Battery cell chemistry LTO
Initial battery cell capacity 20 Ah
Battery configuration 324s 4p
Heating water thermal mass mW 45 kg
Resistance of water heating resistor Rh 11.7 Ω
Max. heating power Ph by approx. (48) 53.7 kW
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

The following subsections present the models for all components

shown on the left side of the system boundary shown in Fig. 2.
Throughout this text, we use bold-face symbols to denote variables that
appear as decision variables in the optimization problems introduced in
the remainder of this text. A complete list of symbols and parameters,
including the respective numerical values, is given in Appendix A.

2.1. Power balance
Based on the system overview shown in Fig. 2, we establish a power
balance between consumers and suppliers at the DC link, as visualized in
Fig. 3. Neglecting the dynamic capacity of the DC link, this power bal­
ance becomes
Pc,out (t) + Pb (t) = Pm (t) + Ph (t) + Pbrk (t) + Paux (t),
Fig. 4. Equivalent circuit of the battery model, which consists of an ideal
voltage source Ub,OC(t) in series with an internal resistance Rb. The power at the
battery terminal is denoted by Pb(t), while Pb,i(t) represents the idealized power
emitted by the voltage source.
(1)

where Pc,out(t) is the power at the converter output, Pb(t) is the battery
discharging power, Pm(t) is the electric power delivered to the motors,
Ph(t) is the water heating power, Pbrk(t) is the power dissipated in the
braking resistor, and Paux(t) represents the sum of all other electric
consumers such as the heat pump, the lights, and the infotainment
system.

2.2. Battery

The battery model consists of an ideal voltage source Ub,OC(t) in se­

ries with a constant internal resistance Rb, as visualized in Fig. 4. As Fig. 5. Battery OCV Ub,OC(t) as a function of the battery charge q(t). The values
are taken from the OpenSesame project [51] and are scaled to the battery
Fig. 5 shows, the measured open circuit voltage (OCV) can be well
configuration of the vehicle. The linear fit has been performed in the window
approximated as an affine function of the battery charge q(t) over a state
between 30% and 95% SOC, visualized with the gray hatched boundaries. The
of charge (SOC) range that is realistic for vehicular applications. Intro­ root mean squared error is 4.8 V, which corresponds to approximately 0.6%.
ducing the two model constants U0 and Cb, we obtain
1
Ub,OC (q(t)) = U0 + ⋅q(t). (2) 2
Cb Ub,OC (t)2 = ⋅(Eb (t) + E0 ). (5)
Cb
The energy content Eb(t) of the battery at a certain charge level q(t)
The time derivative of the energy content of the battery is given by
can be expressed as the integral
the idealized internal discharging power Pb,i(t), i.e.,
∫ q(t)
(3)
′ ′
Eb (t) = Ub,OC (q ) dq . d
0
Eb (t) = − Pb,i (t), (6)
dt
Using the linear approximation (2) of the OCV, this resolves to
where both quantities are limited by constant bounds,
Cb ( ) Cb
Eb (t) = ⋅ Ub,OC (t)2 − U0 2 = ⋅Ub,OC (t)2 − E0 , (4) Eb ≤ Eb (t) ≤ Eb , (7)
2 2

where E0 = 12 Cb U0 2 is introduced for readability as in Refs. [25,52]. By Pb,i ≤ Pb,i (t) ≤ Pb,i , (8)
rearranging the above equation, we obtain an expression for the OCV as
respectively. As mentioned in section 1.3, the battery capacity is
a function of the energy content, i.e.,
determined by the grid autonomy requirements of the bus. It is thus
considered fixed in the models treated here and not subject to optimi­
zation. The battery terminal power is given by
Rb
Pb (t) = Pb,i (t) − ⋅Pb,i (t)2 , (9)
Ub,OC (t)2

which can be brought to the following form using (5):

Rb ⋅Cb
Pb (t) = Pb,i (t) − ⋅Pb,i (t)2 . (10)
2⋅(Eb (t) + E0 )

2.3. Battery health

The battery’s state of health (SOH) is a dimensionless quantity rep­

Fig. 3. Overview of the electric power flows present in the system introduced resented by Ψ(t), which characterizes the current state of the aging
in Fig. 2. Filled arrows indicate the positive direction of power flows. Open process of the battery in terms of capacity degradation. It is typically
arrows indicate that power flows in the reverse direction are possible. The defined as the fraction of the remaining charge capacity Qb(t) to the
vertical black bar represents the DC link where the power balance between initial charge capacity Qb,init,
consumers and suppliers is established. Blocks with a drop shadow represent
dynamic components, the state variables of which are given in the block
descriptions.

4
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

Qb (t) ∫ tf ∫ tf
Ψ(t) = . (11) v(t)dt v(t)dt
Qb,init (14)
t t0
db = (1 − ΨEOL )⋅∫ t0f = (1 − ΨEOL )⋅ ,
ψ (t)dt Ψ(t0 ) − Ψ(tf )
According to this definition, the SOH has a value of 100% at the end
t0

of the manufacturing process of the battery cells and slowly decreases
with battery usage. Typically, the battery’s end-of-life (EOL) is assumed
to be reached at ΨEOL = 80% in vehicular applications. We focus our
analysis on a battery in the middle of its lifetime and therefore select
Ψ(t0) = Ψ0 = 90% and thus, Qb(t0) = 72 Ah, as shown in Fig. 5.
Introducing the variable ψ (t) for the battery degradation, the
following differential equation can be formulated to describe the evo­
lution of the SOH:
d modeled as an ideal voltage source Ug,OC in series with a conductive
Ψ(t) = − ψ (t).
dt
The main factors affecting the aging process of lithium-ion batteries
are the C-rate, the SOC, the DOD, and the cell temperature [53]. We base
the analyses in this paper on the battery degradation models of the
open-source project OpenSesame [51] that describe the degradation of
battery cells based on all aforementioned influence factors, where a
rainflow counting algorithm is used to decompose a given battery usage
cycle into an equivalent set of subcycles. The degradation is then
calculated as a superposition of cycle and calendar aging. Appendix B.1
presents a more detailed outline of the OpenSesame model formulation.
To translate the cycle-based OpenSesame models into a time-based
formulation for the degradation ψ (t), as required for (12), we make
two simplifying assumptions, i.e., we assume a constant cell temperature
and a fixed DOD. The following two paragraphs explain why these as­
sumptions do not significantly influence the results.
On the case study vehicle, the battery temperature is kept relatively
constant owing to the high efficiency of the cells and the liquid cooling
system, which is coupled with the air-conditioning system. In practice,
the temperature window in which the cells are operated during winter is
13–19 ◦ C, while the main fluctuations are driven by changes in the
ambient temperature rather than changes in the driving mission. Since
the aging behavior of the cells considered here is not very sensitive to
temperature changes within this window (see Fig. B.19), we assume a
constant battery temperature of ϑb = 17 ◦ C throughout this manuscript.
If for other battery cells or drivetrain topologies these assumptions are
not valid, the thermal dynamics of the battery should be specifically
included in the optimization problem, see e.g., Refs. [28,32,45,49].
For the DOD, a data analysis of the battery cycling behavior in
practical operation using the OpenSesame tools has shown that small
cycles with a DOD of less than 10% contribute to over 80% of the overall
degradation. Motivated by the observation that the stress factor for the
DOD is very insensitive to small DODs below 10% (see Fig. B.19), we
further simplify the calculation of the degradation by assuming a fixed
DOD value of δ0 = 10%.
Using these two assumptions—constant temperature and fixed
DOD—a time-based approximation of the cycle-based OpenSesame
models can be derived, as shown in Appendix B.2. Thus, we can describe
the momentary degradation as a function of battery power and energy
content as in (B.14), i.e.,
ψ (t) = f̂ψ (Pb,i (t), Eb (t)).
where t0 and tf are the initial and the final time of the driving mission,
respectively, and (1 − ΨEOL) accounts for the fact that only a certain
portion of the overall SOH is available until EOL.
2.4. Converter and grid
As shown in Fig. 3, the grid transmits electric power from the feed
point via the DC-DC converter to the DC link of the bus. The grid is
(12) resistance Rg, similarly to the battery model shown in Fig. 4. Thus, the
power Pc,in(t) that reaches the DC-DC converter of the bus is
Rg
Pc,in (t) = Pg (t) − ⋅Pg (t)2 , (15)
Ug,OC 2
where Pg(t) represents the power at the grid feed point, analogously to
(9) for the battery.
The grid current Ig(t) is limited to prevent excessive wear due to heat
buildup between the current collectors and the overhead wire. This limit
depends on the vehicle speed v(t) and is enforced by the vehicle control
unit (VCU). It is visualized in Fig. 6. Additionally, the overhead grid may
not be available in some parts of the driving mission. We use the indi­
cator function χ (t) to describe the grid availability, where χ (t) = 1
whenever the grid is available and χ (t) = 0 if it is not. All grid limitations
can be summarized by the following box constraint:
0 ≤ Pg (t) ≤ χ (t)⋅Ig (v(t))⋅Ug,OC . (16)
The unidirectional DC-DC converter is modeled with an affine effi­
ciency model. The power available at the DC link becomes
Pc,out (t) = ηc ⋅Pc,in (t) − P0 , (17)
where both ηc and P0 are constant and describe the conversion efficiency
and the idle losses, respectively.
2.5. Heating water system
Next, we address the heating water system that supports the heat
pump in providing the necessary heat for passenger and driver comfort
(see Fig. 2). We model the heating water system as a single thermal
reservoir with an energy content Ew(t) that is a function of the tem­
perature ϑw(t). For notational simplicity, we define the energy content
relative to the minimum admissible temperature ϑw as follows:
( )
Ew (t) = cp ⋅mw ⋅ ϑw (t) − ϑw , (18)
where cp is the thermal capacity of the water. The mass of the water is
denoted by mw, which represents one of the design variables to be
investigated in section 5. For a physical solution, mw is limited by
(13)

To represent the amount of battery degradation caused by driving a

certain mission as a more intuitive value, we use the maximum travel
distance achievable, similarly to other vehicular components. Thus, we
linearly extrapolate the degradation of the selected mission over the
entire lifetime of the vehicle. Due to this simplification, any effects of the
SOH on the degradation are neglected when computing the battery
lifetime. Specific considerations of the changing battery behavior over
its lifetime are subject of further research. Hence, the battery lifetime
can be calculated by
Fig. 6. Empirical speed-dependent grid current limit that is enforced in prac­
tical operation to prevent excessive degradation of the current collectors due to
heat buildup.

5
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

mw ≥ 0. (19) of the varying number of passengers on the bus, which is determined by

the driving mission.
With the definitions above, the thermal energy content of the water is
bounded by
2.7. Longitudinal vehicle dynamics
( )
0 ≤ Ew (t) ≤ cp ⋅mw ⋅ ϑw − ϑw , (20)
To describe the longitudinal dynamics, we adopt the notation from
where ϑw is the maximum temperature allowed. Ref. [3] in conjunction with Newton’s second law of motion to obtain
The heating water loses heat to the environment, the temperature of the traction force,
which we assume to be constant at ϑ∞ = 0 ◦ C for a realistic heating Ft (t) = (mv (t) + mrot )⋅a(t) + Faero (t) + Froll (t) + Fgrade (t), (28)
scenario. We model the heat loss according to Newton’s law of cooling, i.
e., where mrot is the equivalent mass of the inertia of all rotating parts of the
powertrain [3] and a(t) is the longitudinal acceleration of the bus. The
Q̇loss (t) = κ⋅(ϑw (t) − ϑ∞ ), (21)
variables Faero(t), Froll(t), and Fgrade(t) denote the aerodynamic drag
where κ is the heat transfer coefficient. Using (18), the losses become force, rolling friction force, and the uphill driving force, respectively.
They are defined as
κ⋅Ew (t) ( )
Q̇loss (t) = + κ⋅ ϑw − ϑ∞ . (22) 1
cp ⋅mw Faero (t) = ρ ⋅cD ⋅AF ⋅v(t)2 , (29)
2 air
The energy content of the heating water evolves with the differential
equation Froll (t) = cR ⋅g⋅mv (t)⋅cos α(t), (30)

d
Ew (t) = Ph (t) − Q̇loss (t) − Q̇h (t), (23)
dt
where the electrical power Ph(t) is converted to heat in the heating
resistor. For simplicity, we assume that the heat utilized by the HVAC
system Q̇h (t) perfectly matches the actual demand. We thus assume it as
a disturbance that is independent of the water temperature.
The heating resistor has a constant electrical resistance Rh, which is
the second design variable to be investigated in section 5. For a physical
solution, Rh is limited by
Rh ≥ 0. (24)
Using (5), we can calculate an upper bound for the heating power
based on the battery voltage Ub,OC(t) as follows:
Fgrade (t) = g⋅mv (t)⋅sin α(t), (31)
where the earth’s gravitational acceleration g, the air density ρair, the
aerodynamic drag coefficient cD, the vehicle frontal area AF, and the
rolling friction coefficient cR are considered to be constant, the
assumption of which is reasonable for urban driving [3]. The velocity v
(t), the acceleration a(t), and the road inclination angle α(t) are all
time-dependent disturbances given by the driving mission.
The above equations can be substituted into (28), which yields the
following equation for the traction force:
Ft (t) = mv (t)⋅(a(t) + cR ⋅g⋅cos α(t) + g⋅sin α(t))
1 (32)
+mrot ⋅a(t) + ρ ⋅cD ⋅AF ⋅v(t)2 .
2 air

Ub,OC (t)2 2⋅(Eb (t) + E0 )

Ph (t) = = , (25) 2.8. Drivetrain
Rh Cb ⋅Rh

where we neglect the voltage drop over the battery internal resistance Generally, the traction force is provided by the electric motors, even
Rb, which will later enable the formulation of a convex optimization during braking. While the bus does feature friction brakes, they are only
problem. However, as is to be shown below, the maximum heating used during standstill or in emergency situations. Thus, we can link the
power usually is employed only during recuperation phases where the electrical motor power Pm(t) to the mechanical power Ft(t) ⋅ v(t) using a
voltage drop over the battery internal resistance is small or even nega­ simple drivetrain model with a constant efficiency ηdt,
⎧
tive. In practice, any heating power below Ph (t) may be realized with
⎨ 1 ⋅Ft (t)⋅v(t),
⎪
if Ft (t) ≥ 0,
pulse-width modulation (PWM). Therefore, the limits on the heating Pm (t) = ηdt (33)
power Ph(t) may be summarized as follows: ⎪
⎩
ηdt ⋅Ft (t)⋅v(t), otherwise.
2⋅(Eb (t) + E0 )
0 ≤ Ph (t) ≤ . (26) This case distinction can be written in a more compact fashion, i.e.,
Cb ⋅Rh
{ }
1
Pm (t) = v(t)⋅max ⋅Ft (t), ηdt ⋅Ft (t) . (34)
2.6. Vehicle mass ηdt

The vehicle mass mv includes the mass of the water circuit, which
consists of the structure and the insulation, and the mass of the heating
device, which consists of the heating resistor and the pump. Hence, mv
changes as a function of the two design variables mw and Rh as follows:
Based on the factor , the additional mass of the water circuit is assumed
to scale linearly with mw εtank . The mass of the heating device is assumed
to scale linearly with the maximum heating power, which is inversely
proportional to Rh, as shown in (25). Thus, the mass of the heating
device is obtained by multiplying Rh − 1 with a factor εh. As a result, the
gross vehicle mass is given by
εh
mv (t) = mempty + mpass (t) + εtank ⋅mw + , (27)
Rh
where mempty represents the curb weight and mpass(t) represents the mass
3. Driving missions
The simulation studies described in the following sections are based
on three different driving missions, the time-resolved signals of which
are shown in Fig. 7.
Route 33 and Route 46 represent complete round trips whose mea­
surement data was recorded by a trolley bus operated on the respective
bus routes in Zürich. The vehicle speed v(t), the auxiliary power Paux(t),
and the grid availability χ (t) are directly provided by the VCU. The heat
consumption rate Q̇h (t) is estimated based on measurements of the water
temperature ϑw(t) and the heating power Ph(t) along with the modeled
thermal losses (21). However, since the quality of these measurements is
too low for a time-resolved estimation of the heat consumption rate, we
use an average value for each driving mission, i.e., Q̇h (t) = 9.3 kW for

6
F. Widmer et al.
Fig. 7. Time-dependent data that defines the three driving missions Route 33,
Route 46, and WLTC. The areas shaded in gray correspond to sections where no
overhead grid is available, i.e., χ (t) = 0.
Route 33 and Q̇h (t) = 9.0 kW for Route 46. Since the water circuit
provides a certain thermal buffer capacity, we do not expect the results
to be influenced much by the slight variations in the heat consumption
rate that are likely to occur in practice. The passenger mass mpass(t) is
provided by a passenger counting system. The elevation profile is esti­
mated based on data from a global navigation satellite system (GNSS)
receiver.
In addition to the two real-world driving missions introduced above,
we utilize the low and medium velocity phases for Class 2 vehicles of the
worldwide harmonized light-duty vehicles test cycle (WLTC) assembled
in a low-medium-low pattern. As usual for this driving cycle, a flat road
profile is assumed. Furthermore, all other disturbances are assumed to
be constant, i.e., Paux(t) = 6 kW, Q̇h (t) = 9 kW, and mpass(t) = 4t. The
latter represents a large passenger volume, which is selected to
compensate for the flat road profile. Finally, we assume that the grid is
always available on this mission, i.e., χ (t) = 1.
4. Optimal control problem
Throughout this text, we aim at minimizing the total energy con­
sumption Econs while ensuring a certain minimum value of the final SOH.
We thereby assume the bus to be operated on a periodic mission. Thus,
we aim to find a charge-sustaining solution, the idea of which we extend
to the energy level of the water circuit. Specifically, the initial values for
the battery and the water energy are free, but the respective final values
must be equal to the initial ones. The resulting optimization problem can
be outlined in the following generic form:
given a ​ driving ​ mission,
minimize Econs ,
s.t. Ψ(tf ) ≥ Ψ,
(35)
Eb (t0 ) = Eb (tf ),
Ew (t0 ) = Ew (tf ),
model ​ equations ​ and ​ constraints.
7
eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196
As the objective is the most energy-efficient operation possible, the
total energy consumption Econs includes not only the energy supplied by
the feed points during the operation
∫ t0
Eg = Pg (t)dt, (36)
tf
but also the energy necessary for the initial heat-up of the heating water
to its operating temperature. This consideration is motivated by the fact
that the thermal energy contained in the heating water is completely
“lost” to the environment after the vehicle has finished its service for the
day. In accordance with (18), the energy required to heat the water
circuit from the temperature in the bus depot ϑdepot to its operating
temperature ϑw(t0) is given by
( )
Eh,init = cp ⋅mw ⋅ ϑw (t0 ) − ( ϑdepot ) (37)
= Ew (t0 ) + cp ⋅mw ⋅ ϑw − ϑdepot .
The overall energy consumption then becomes
tf − t0
Econs = Eg + Eh,init ⋅ , (38)
top
where the last factor ensures that the heating energy is taken into ac­
count only once per period of operation top of the bus on a day, which
typically is much longer than the time horizon of the optimization tf − t0
that represents one trip.
In this section, we consider a specific vehicle design based on the
actual vehicle at hand. Therefore, both design variables mw and Rh take
the specific values listed in Table 1. As a result, the vehicle mass (27) and
consequently also the traction force (32) and the traction power (34)
required to follow a certain driving mission can be calculated prior to
the optimization. The entire driving mission is thus fully described by
the power request
Preq (t) = Pm (t) + Paux (t). (39)
As a consequence, the optimization problem (35) becomes a classical
optimal control problem (OCP), which can be formulated as a convex
program, as is to be shown in the following section.
4.1. Convexifications
The prime merit of convex programming is the fact that any local
optimizer is guaranteed to be a global one. Unfortunately, the models
and constraints introduced above do not directly lead to a convex
optimization problem. However, we can derive such a formulation by
introducing model approximations where necessary and by relaxing
some of the equations of section 2 in a “lossless” manner as described in
Ref. [54] such that the minimizer of the problem remains unaffected. All
necessary convexifications are described in the following subsections.
4.1.1. Battery
The non-affine equality constraint (10) that describes the battery
model is not convex. However, a convex formulation can be found based
on the idea of integrating the braking resistor into the corresponding
equations of the battery model. In an energy-optimal operating strategy,
the braking resistor is used to dissipate any excess power present in the
DC link, which only occurs if the motors recuperate more power or more
energy over a continuous horizon than the battery can absorb. In a
battery-health-aware strategy, the braking resistor might additionally be
used to lower battery degradation by reducing the battery charging
power. In either case and without loss of generality, we can therefore
adopt the interpretation that the braking resistor power Pbrk(t) allows to
reduce the battery power,
̃b (t),
Pb (t) − Pbrk (t) = P (40)
where P
̃ b (t) represents the “lumped” battery power that includes the
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

dissipated power Pbrk(t). 4.1.3. Grid

Since Pbrk(t) ≥ 0, it directly follows that The grid model (15) and the converter model (17) can be combined
to yield the following relation between the power supplied by the
̃b (t) ≤ Pb (t).
P (41) overhead grid and the power delivered by the converter:
Combining (41) with (10) and reordering terms, we obtain 1 P0 Rg
Pc,out (t) + = Pg (t) − ⋅Pg (t)2 . (46)
Pb,i (t) 2
Rb ⋅Cb ̃ ηc ηc Ug,OC 2
⋅ + Pb (t) ≤ Pb,i (t), (42)
(Eb (t) + E0 ) 2
This non-convex constraint is relaxed as follows:
which is a convex constraint where the first term is quadratic-over-linear Rg 1 P0
with positive values for both the dividend and the divisor [55]. ⋅Pg (t)2 + ⋅Pc,out (t) + ≤ Pg (t), (47)
Ug,OC 2 ηc ηc
Using the notation introduced above, the power balance (1) can be
reformulated to which allows a greater consumption of grid power. Obviously, this
constraint is always satisfied with equality in the optimal solution since
̃b (t) + Pc,out (t) = Pm (t) + Ph (t) + Paux (t).
P (43)
we directly minimize the consumption of grid energy.
As a consequence of this convexification, the dissipated power Pbrk(t)
no longer explicitly enters the formulation of the OCP. However, its 4.2. Optimization problem
trajectory is simple to restore after a successful optimization by calcu­
lating Pb(t) based on (10) and solving for Pbrk(t) in (40). Adopting the generic form of the optimization problem (35) and all
convexifications introduced above, the complete convex OCP can be
4.1.2. Battery health formulated as summarized in Problem 1.
The model of the battery degradation is not convex. To work towards
Problem 1. (Optimal Control Problem): Find the energy-optimal
a convex formulation, we first relax (13) as follows:
control input trajectories for the integrated energy and thermal man­
ψ (t) ≥ f̂ψ (Pb,i (t), Eb (t)). (44) agement system (IETMS) such that a battery degradation limit is met, i.e.,

This relaxation is lossless because any usage of the battery causes battery
degradation. If the terminal constraint on the SOH in (35) is active, this
limit slightly restricts battery usage at all times at the expense of energy
efficiency. Since the overall energy consumption is our objective func­
tion, (44) therefore always holds with equality. A similar relaxation is
introduced in Refs. [41,42], for instance.
As a second measure, we approximate the epigraph described in (44)
in a piecewise linear fashion, i.e., by introducing Napprox = 40 planes
fitted to (44) in regularly spaced regions and taking the pointwise
maximum thereof. As a result, we obtain the convex constraint
( )
ψ (t) ≥ max p0,i + p1,i ⋅Eb (t) + p2,i ⋅Pb,i (t) , (45)
i∈{1,…,Napprox }

which is visualized in Fig. 8.

Although the formulation of Problem 1 uses a set of nine

Fig. 8. Visualization of the battery degradation (13) on the left and the corresponding piecewise linear approximation (45) on the right. The approximation achieves
a mean absolute error in battery degradation of 2.70 × 10− 10 and R2 = 0.998.

8
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

optimization variables, the underlying OCP has only three degrees of

freedom, namely, Pc,out(t), P
̃ b (t), and Ph(t). The additional variables
result from the specific problem formulation: Pb,i(t), ψ (t), and Pg(t)
allow the relaxations introduced above. The state variables Eb(t), Ew(t),
and Ψ(t) are required for the transcription of the continuous-time OCP to
an NLP via direct multiple shooting [56].

4.3. Implementation notes

The transcription of the OCP to an NLP is based on the forward Euler

integration scheme with a constant discretization time step of 1 s. For
reference, Appendix C shows the complete finite-dimensional NLP
formulation of Problem 1. To solve the resulting NLP, we use the CasADi
[57] interface to Ipopt [58] and the linear solver MUMPS [59].
Our experience has shown that the time required for the solver to
converge strongly depends on the driving mission under consideration
as well as the battery lifetime targeted. On a personal computer with an
Intel Core i7-8565U (4 × 1.8 GHz) processor unit, the time required for
solving the optimization problem is between 10 s and 100 s.

4.4. Optimal control trajectories

In this subsection, we present an analysis of the optimal trajectories

obtained by solving Problem 1 for Route 46. To visualize the trade-off
Fig. 9. State trajectories resulting from the solution of Problem 1 on Route 46
between the energy efficiency and the battery degradation, Problem 1
for various limits on battery degradation. The gray hatched areas represent
is formulated and solved for three different cases of the battery degra­
inequality constraints. The thermal energy content of the water Ew(t) has been
dation limit Ψ, which are listed in Table 2 along with the corresponding transformed to a temperature ϑw(t) based on (18).
battery lifetimes and the resulting energy consumption values.
The “unlimited” case corresponds to the energy-optimal solution
a “moderate” reduction in battery degradation by 35% causes a negli­
where battery degradation is not considered. The “moderate” limit is
gible increase in additional energy consumption of only about 1.6%.
chosen such that a reduction of battery degradation of 35% compared to
However, a “strong” reduction of the battery degradation by 58% in­
the “unlimited” case is achieved, while the “strong” limit further reduces
creases the energy consumption by about 9.6% compared to the energy-
the degradation by another 35%.
optimal case. Hence, the additional energy consumption does not in­
Fig. 9 shows the state trajectories for the three different cases in
crease linearly with the achievable extension of the battery lifetime.
different colors. The top graph visualizes the fact that the battery is
Furthermore, in a realistic scenario where the trolley bus is expected to
operated at high charge levels in both cases with unlimited and
travel about 1.2 Mio. km before its withdrawal from service, clearly, a
“moderately” limited battery degradation. This operation is reasonable
battery-health-aware energy management is mandatory to prevent a
as a higher battery voltage Ub,OC(t) according to (5) and thus, a higher
premature battery replacement.
battery efficiency is achieved. For “strong” limitations on battery
Fig. 10 provides a graphical illustration of the various components of
degradation, on the other hand, the top graph shows that the battery is
the power balance (1) as a function of the power request Preq(t) defined
operated at a lower charge level. While this leads to higher cell currents,
in (39). The energy-optimal, “unlimited” case shows linear contributions
which increases losses and battery degradation, it is advantageous in
to positive power request values from both energy suppliers, the battery
terms of calendar aging. This is observed also in other lithium-titanium-
and the grid. The observable slopes, however, are not equal. Justified by
oxide (LTO) cell aging tests, e.g., Ref. [60]. Apparently, the effects of
the greater resistive losses in the overhead grid lines compared to the
calendar aging outweigh the effects of cycle aging for “strong” limita­
battery, fluctuations in power demand are predominantly accommo­
tions on battery degradation.
dated by changes in battery power, which yields the steeper slope for the
The second graph shows the trajectories of the water temperature,
battery. Negative power requests, i.e., recuperated traction power, are
the differences of which are less pronounced. In fact, there is barely any
mainly utilized for heating purposes up to the maximum heating power
difference between the “unlimited” and the “moderately” limited case
of about 57 kW. However, the corresponding power distribution is not as
and many of the peaks are also present in the “strongly” limited case. In
distinct as for the battery and the converter due to the relatively narrow
contrast to the “unlimited” and “moderately” limited cases, a higher
range of the admissible water temperature. Accordingly, the tempera­
initial temperature is preferred in the optimal solution for the “strongly”
ture bounds are hit rather frequently, which implies that the fraction of
limited case, which provides greater flexibility in the use of the thermal
recuperation power that can be converted to heat is also adapted
buffer at the expense of a greater heat-up energy Eh,init required.
frequently. As a result, certain “cloudy” regions in the power contribu­
Finally, the energy consumption values listed in Table 2 indicate that
tions of the battery and the converter occur, as denoted by Ⓐ in Fig. 10.
The power distribution values show different characteristics if the
Table 2 battery degradation is limited. For example, in a particular range of
Overview of the battery lifetime targets and the resulting energy consumption
requested power, the battery is not used by the optimal control strategy
on Route 46. The percentages in parentheses represent the relative changes of
in order to prevent degradation, as indicated by Ⓑ. Consequently, the
the corresponding quantities w.r.t. the unlimited case.
power request is entirely covered by the converter, as shown by the
db [Mio. km] Econs [kWh]
Ψ − Ψ0
[− ] converter power values lying on the identity line. Outside of this range
10− 6
of requested power, the distribution between the battery and the con­
Unlimited − 2.935 0.999 25.82
verter is similar to the one without any battery degradation restriction.
Moderate − 1.908 ( − 35%) 1.537 ( + 54%) 26.23 ( + 1.6%)
Strong − 1.240 ( − 58%) 2.365 ( + 137%) 28.29 ( + 9.6%) Finally, the “strong” battery degradation limit enforces the use of the

9
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

Fig. 10. Power distribution at the DC-link obtained by solving Problem 1 for Route 46 subject to various battery degradation limits. The dashed black lines represent
45◦ lines. The annotations are explained in the corresponding paragraphs of Section 4.4.

braking resistor to dissipate recuperation power in order to mitigate the limit is met, i.e.,
battery aging process, as indicated by Ⓒ. Furthermore, due to the lower
battery charge level selected and thus, the lower battery voltage, a lower
maximum heating power is available. As soon as the varying upper grid
limit (16) becomes active, the converter power contribution is limited,
which leads to deviations from the linear power distribution, indicated
by Ⓓ in the battery and converter graph.
It is worth noting that the staggered change of the power split profile
indicated by Ⓔ is an artifact of the non-smooth approximation (45).
However, as the high accuracy of the approximation (R2 = 0.998) sug­
gests, the overall results are not significantly affected by this minor
deviation.

5. Optimal sizing problem

In this section, we extend the formulation of the OCP introduced

above by two decision variables that describe the design of the heating
water system. Therefore, we again adopt the generic formulation of the
optimization problem (35), but additionally consider the design vari­
ables mw and Rh. The optimization problem is thus subject to the
additional constraints (19) and (24), which describe the admissible
value regions of the two design variables, and the expressions (27), (32)
The additional degrees of freedom introduced to the optimization
and (34) that relate the design variables to the vehicle mass, the longi­
problem by considering the design of the heating water system allow to
tudinal vehicle dynamics, and the drivetrain model, respectively. The
further reduce the total energy consumption for a given battery lifetime
resulting optimization problem is summarized as follows:
target. The optimal solution thus marks the optimal trade-off between a
Problem 2. (Optimal Sizing Problem): Find the sizing parameters of large heating water system with a large energy buffering potential and a
the heating water system and the control trajectories of the IETMS such small heating water system with a small added vehicle mass and amount
that the energy consumption is minimized and a battery degradation of heat-up energy.

10
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

The optimization problem stated in Problem 2 is not convex. In

particular, the constraints for the heat losses (22), the upper limit of the
heating power (26), and the drivetrain efficiency model (34) do not
preserve the convexity of the feasible set and cannot be relaxed in the
manner described in section 4.1. On that account, we address the opti­
mization problem as described in the following.

5.1. Implementation notes

We solve Problem 2 in two different ways: First, we perform a grid

search over the design space of the heating water system, which, on the
one hand, allows to study the sensitivity with respect to the design
variables and, on the other hand, is guaranteed to find the global optimal
solution of the grid points studied. Specifically, we solve the problem in
a nested approach, where the convex Problem 1 is solved in the inner
loop for various combinations of fixed values for the sizing variables mw
and Rh.
Second, we formulate a non-convex NLP to solve the coupled design
and control problem in a simultaneous manner without guarantee of
global optimality. We therefore use the same strategy and hardware as
described in section 4.3. Again, the solution time varies greatly based on
the battery degradation limit and the driving mission under consider­
ation. For our case study, it is between 1 min and 1 h. Fig. 12. Results of a grid search over the design parameter space with a
Although the resistance value Rh is used to scale the heating resistor, “strong” battery degradation limit as specified in Table 2. Every grid point
represents a solution to the convex OCP Problem 1. The asterisk represents the
we consider the maximum heating power Ph to be the more under­
solution of the simultaneous approach to solve Problem 2.
standable value and thus the better suitable quantity for the further
analysis steps. However, according to (25), for a given design choice Rh,
the maximum heating power is not constant throughout the optimiza­
tion horizon. Therefore, the visualizations below show the maximum 5.2. Results
heating power based on the following approximation:

2⋅(Eb (t) + E0 ) 2⋅(Eb + E0 )
Ph (t) = ≈ , (48)
Cb ⋅Rh Cb ⋅Rh
which is based on the observation that the battery is mostly operated
close to its upper energy bound and that the voltage does not change too
much over the allowed energy range, as shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 11. Results of a grid search over the design parameter space with a
“moderate” battery degradation limit as specified in Table 2. Every grid point
represents a solution to the convex OCP Problem 1. The asterisk represents the
solution of the simultaneous approach to solve Problem 2.
The results of both the nested and the simultaneous solution
approach to Problem 2 are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 for the “moderate”
and the “strong” battery degradation limits, respectively. The colored
contour plot is generated based on the values of the objective function at
each grid point. The grid point with the lowest value is marked by a
circle. The two figures show that the objective is smooth around the
optimizer and that the optimal solution found by the simultaneous
approach is very close to the best performing combination of design
variables found by the grid search approach. Similar results were
observed in extensive experiments with various battery degradation
limitations on various driving missions. We thus consider the simulta­
neous approach to be generally suitable to find the global minimizer of
Problem 2 in realistic scenarios for the vehicle studied, which allows us
to use the simultaneous approach for the parametric studies presented in
the following sections.
A qualitative analysis of Figs. 11 and 12 reveals that the objective has
a relatively small sensitivity with respect to the two design variables in a
relatively large range around the optimal solution. Oversizing the
components yields only a small increase in Econs, especially with respect
to the heating power. This observation can be intuitively explained by
considering that the increase in heating power adds very little mass to
the vehicle compared to its total weight. Undersizing, on the other hand,
can cause a very significant increase in energy consumption, since the
braking resistor might have to be used more often. Thus, in the presence
of uncertainty, oversizing is the preferable solution.
To further study the effects of the battery limitation values, we solve
Problem 2 with the simultaneous approach for a whole range of desired
battery lifetime values db. The results are shown in Fig. 13. The top
graph shows the Pareto front between the competing goals of battery
lifetime db and energy consumption Econs. For each Pareto front, the
leftmost point corresponds to the “unlimited”, energy-optimal case,
while the rightmost point corresponds to the maximum achievable
battery lifetime on the given driving mission. Clearly, large differences
exist between the driving missions: Route 33 represents the most
demanding mission, as it exhibits both the highest energy consumption

11
F. Widmer et al.
Fig. 13. Optimization results from Problem 2 for the driving missions intro­
duced in section 3 and various values of battery lifetime. The black dashed line
represents the design parameters of the case study vehicle.
and the lowest battery life. The WLTC, on the other hand, is less
demanding than the two real-life driving missions as it features a less
aggressive acceleration profile and lacks an altitude profile.
Despite these differences, the results on all driving missions show a
similar qualitative trend. Starting with the unlimited case, the battery
lifetime can easily be extended without too much additional energy
consumption. This is consistent with the observation made above. At a
certain point, however, each Pareto front shows a pronounced “elbow”
point above which the energy consumption increases significantly. This
steep ascent is due to the increase of the dissipated energy,
∫ tf
Ebrk = Pbrk (t)dt, (49)
t0
which is shown in the second graph in Fig. 13. Thus, the elbow point
marks the optimal strategy, where an extension of the battery lifetime is
only possible by dissipating some energy in the braking resistor. Obvi­
ously, this strategy is energetically very expensive and should therefore
be avoided in practice.
The two bottom graphs of Fig. 13 show the design parameters of the
heating water system where for the heating power the approximation
(48) is again used. The dashed lines indicate the parameters of the
vehicle listed in Table 1. The optimal designs for the various driving
missions all follow a similar trend. Both the water mass mw and the
maximum heating power Ph increase with increasing requirements on
the battery lifetime, as the advantages of having a larger energy buffer
and more heating power outweigh more and more the drawbacks of an
increased vehicle mass (27) and the additional heat-up energy required
(37). However, if the braking resistor is used, the optimal trade-off
changes abruptly. An intuitive explanation for this observation is that
whenever recuperation energy is to be wasted, it is optimal to do so
when the recuperation power is highest, as the analysis above shows.
12
eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196
Hence, the advantage of having a high thermal buffering potential
vanishes.
A comparison of the optimal values of the water mass and the
maximum heating power with those of the real vehicle shows that
changing the thermal energy capacity is not necessary, considering the
low sensitivity evident in Figs. 11 and 12. On the other hand, increasing
the size of the heating device, i.e., offering a higher maximum heating
power, is advantageous in almost all scenarios. This effect may be un­
expected, considering the fact that the heat consumption in this case
study is only around 10 kW on all missions. Hence, for strong battery
degradation limitations, due to the low sensitivity towards oversizing,
selecting a heating device that is able to convert the maximum recu­
peration power into heat might be a reasonable choice. This observation
highlights the importance of considering the heating water circuit as a
thermal energy buffer.
6. Quantitative advantages of the combined approach
In this section, we quantify the potential for improvement achievable
with a holistic view on the battery-health-aware IETMS and the design
optimization. Therefore, in section 6.1, we introduce a baseline opti­
mization problem, i.e., Problem 0, that considers battery degradation
but uses a conventional bang-bang heating strategy typically used in
automotive thermostats.
For convenience, Table 3 provides an overview of the three optimi­
zation problems introduced in this manuscript, which are compared in
the following sections 6.2–6.5. With these comparisons, we quantita­
tively highlight the importance of all three pillars introduced in the
literature review in section 1.2, i.e., the joint consideration of battery
health, IETMS, and design optimization.
6.1. Baseline: Bang-bang heating
The baseline heating strategy is a heuristic strategy, the state
sequence of which is illustrated in Fig. 14. The switching points are
given by two temperature thresholds where the heating is turned on to
Ph (t) = Ph (t) whenever the temperature falls below the lower limit ϑw
and is turned off to Ph(t) = 0 whenever the temperature exceeds the
upper limit ϑw .
To implement this strategy in a battery-health-aware EMS, we adopt
Problem 1 and conduct the following modifications that preserve the
convexity of the problem: First, the heating power Ph(t) and the water
energy content Ew(t) are calculated prior to the optimization and are
therefore no longer optimization variables. To obtain a conservative
estimate of Ph (t) for the bang-bang controller, we select a constant Eb =
Eb in (25), which is favorable for this strategy as it leads to low peak
heating power values. Second, as the heuristic heating strategy generally
does not achieve the same value for the final temperature as the initial
temperature, we always assume an initial maximum water temperature
according to the upper limit in (20). This approach prevents negative
impacts on the performance of the baseline strategy due to a mismatch
between initial and final temperature.
The resulting convex optimization problem is then defined as shown
in Problem 0. It considers the battery degradation in an optimal manner
and thus corresponds to the battery-health-aware EMS studied in Refs.
[12,16,18].
Table 3
Overview of the features of the three optimization problems presented in this
manuscript.
Label Opt.EMS Opt. bat.degrad. Opt.heating Opt.sizing
Problem 0 ✓ ✓
Problem 1 ✓ ✓ ✓
Problem 2 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
F. Widmer et al.
Fig. 14. State machine diagram of the bang-bang heating sequence. Heating is
turned on whenever the temperature falls below the lower limit ϑw and is
turned off whenever the temperature exceeds the upper limit ϑw .
Problem 0. (Optimal Control Given Bang-Bang Heating): Find the
optimal control input trajectories for the energy management such that a
battery degradation limit is met, i.e.,
6.2. Qualitative comparison of solution approaches
Fig. 15 shows the Pareto fronts that result from solving Problems 0 to
2 for the entire feasible range of the battery lifetime db.
Analogously to the analyses above, distinct elbow points can be
Fig. 15. Resulting Pareto fronts for the driving missions introduced in section
3. The dotted lines represent solutions of the baseline Problem 0 with bang-
bang heating, the dashed lines represent the solution to Problem 1, i.e., the
optimal trajectory for the specific vehicle design, and the solid lines represent
the optimal sizing and control solution to Problem 2.
13
eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196
identified for all combinations of driving missions and optimization
problems, which can again be attributed to the specific value of db where
extending the battery lifetime is energetically more expensive, as it re­
quires some energy to be dissipated in the braking resistor. The corre­
sponding points are marked with squares in Fig. 15.
Of course, the more degrees of freedom are available to the optimi­
zation algorithm, the more it manages to improve the Pareto front, i.e.,
to “push” it towards the bottom right corner in Fig. 15. Qualitatively,
there is a significant improvement between the formulations that are
based on the heuristic heating strategy stated in Problem 0 and the
optimal heating strategy stated in Problem 1. In contrast, the additional
advantage of optimizing the design of the heating water system, i.e.,
Problem 2, offers significantly lower advantages.
To support the qualitative statements above, we introduce alterna­
tive representations of the Pareto fronts in Figs. 16–18. These repre­
sentations, which are discussed in the following sections, allow to
quantitatively show the effectiveness of the consideration of battery
aging, thermal, and traction energy management coupled with design
optimization.
6.3. Advantages of battery-health-aware optimal control
When the purely energy-optimal solutions where battery degrada­
tion is not limited are analyzed, represented by the leftmost points in
Fig. 15, a realistic service life of 1.2 Mio. km cannot be realized on the
two realistic driving missions of Route 33 and Route 46 without battery
replacements. Moreover, extending the battery life beyond the energy-
optimal solution initially suffers only a very small energy penalty,
which starts growing more rapidly after the aforementioned elbow
points have been reached.
These facts are highlighted in Fig. 16, which shows the relative
improvement potential when battery degradation is specifically
considered in the optimization problem: Irrespective of the heating
strategy, the battery lifetime can be increased by 50% with an additional
energy consumption of only 1–3%. A closer inspection shows that an
extension of the battery lifetime can be achieved more cheaply with an
optimized heating strategy. This advantage is examined in more detail in
the next section.
6.4. Advantages of combined thermal and energy management
To quantify the advantages of combining the thermal and energy
management in an IETMS, we compare the results of Problem 0 with
those of Problem 1. The left graph in Fig. 17 shows the energy saving
Fig. 16. Pareto fronts of Fig. 15 relative to their lower left point, i.e., showing
the relative improvements compared to the energy-optimal case (unlimited
battery degradation).
F. Widmer et al.
potential for a given lifetime target as a result of using an optimized
heating strategy. Clearly, where the braking resistor is not used (i.e.,
“left” of the markers), the energy saving potential is around 1–3%.
Under these circumstances, the potential for energy savings is limited
due to the high efficiency of all components involved. Even larger en­
ergy advantages can be achieved for more restrictive battery lifetime
requirements where the usage of the braking resistor can be prevented
by the optimal operation of the water heating system. For example, due
to an optimal heating control strategy, a target lifetime of db = 1.2 Mio.
km can be reached on Routes 46 and 33 with a reduction in energy
consumption of 2.5% and 6.7%, compared to a bang-bang heating
strategy, respectively.
The right graph of Fig. 17 illustrates the possible lifetime extension
with a given energy consumption. This perspective further emphasizes
the advantages of the optimized heating strategy: Depending on the
energy consumption under consideration, the battery lifetime can be
improved by 40%–60% for all driving missions.
6.5. Advantages of optimized sizing
Fig. 18 shows the additional advantages that emerge from optimizing
the design of the heating water system. As expected, the advantage is
significantly lower than the one obtainable by optimizing the heating
strategy shown above.
The energy reduction potential for a given battery lifetime target
shown in the left graph of Fig. 18 is in the range of 0.4%–1.1% if the use
of the braking resistor is not required. If its use becomes necessary,
energy dissipation can be reduced by increasing the size of the thermal
14
eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196
Fig. 17. Advantage of using the optimal heating
strategy (Problem 1) over the heuristic bang-bang
heating strategy (Problem 0). The data shown here
represents the comparison between the dotted and
the dashed lines of Fig. 15. The left graph shows the
reduction in energy consumption Econs for a specific
battery lifetime db. The right graph shows the exten­
sion of battery lifetime for a specific energy con­
sumption. The markers indicate where the braking
resistor is starting to be used for each strategy.
Fig. 18. Advantage of optimizing the heating system
design (Problem 2) over the strategy with optimal
heating but suboptimal component sizes (Problem 1).
The data shown here represents the comparison be­
tween the dashed and the solid lines of Fig. 15. The
left graph shows the reduction in energy consumption
Econs for a specific battery lifetime db. The right graph
shows the extension of battery lifetime for a specific
energy consumption. The markers indicate where the
braking resistor is starting to be used for each
strategy.
buffer and its recuperation potential, which leads to larger energy gains
of up to 5.5%.
If we look at the battery lifetime extension potential for a given en­
ergy consumption, as shown in the right graph of Fig. 18, the potential
becomes more apparent. Particularly for the low and moderate energy
consumption values, which correspond to low and moderate lifetime
requirements, where the braking resistor is not used, a significant bat­
tery lifetime extension by 5%–12% is possible on all driving missions.
The reason for these large gains is the fact that when lifetime re­
quirements are low, a marginal energetic gain can provide large lifetime
gains because extending battery life in this area is energetically cheap.
7. Conclusion
7.1. Contributions
In this manuscript, we present the formulation of an optimization
problem that combines an IETMS subject to minimum battery lifetime
requirements with design optimization. We show that the OCP for a
given vehicle design can be formulated as a convex optimization prob­
lem and that the combined control and sizing problem has a unique
minimizer although it is non-convex. We further analyze the results of
the joint control and design optimization for a wide range of battery
lifetime requirements and multiple driving missions in order to derive
Pareto fronts that characterize the trade-off between battery lifetime and
energy consumption. By performing detailed analyses of the results, we
quantitatively show the importance of a joint consideration of battery
degradation, IETMS, and design optimization.
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

As expected, requesting a higher battery lifetime forces the power
split to deviate from the energy-optimal solution. However, a battery
lifetime extension by about 50% can be achieved with an energy con­
sumption penalty of only around 1–3%. Further lifetime extensions,
however, are very costly, as part of the recuperated energy has to be
wasted in the braking resistor. Compared to a baseline strategy where a
bang-bang controller determines the heating strategy, the Pareto front
can be improved significantly. For example, a realistic target vehicle
lifetime of 1.2 Mio. km without battery replacements is possible with a
7% decrease in energy consumption on Route 33. Finally, we show that
the Pareto front can be improved even further by co-optimizing the
design of the heating system. Specifically, additional battery lifetime
improvements by 5%–15% can be achieved without increasing the en­
ergy consumption. The results of the design optimization reveal that the
maximum power of the heating device should be selected well above the
thermal demand to allow an effective use of the heat buffer: In our case
study, heating power values of over 200 kW are optimal in some cases,
while the thermal heat request is only around 10 kW.
compartments. Such systems can be exploited year-round instead of only
in the heating season, and thus should be considered in further
investigations.
Third, a robust online feedback controller should be synthesized that
allows to realize a certain predefined trade-off between energy savings
and battery lifetime extensions as identified in this study. Such a design
could be based on an extension of the ECMS, which has proven to be a
useful tool for developing close-to-optimal feedback controllers.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Fabio Widmer: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Writing – original draft, Visualization. Andreas Ritter:
Conceptualization, Software, Writing – original draft. Pol Duhr:
Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. Christopher H. Onder:
Conceptualization, Supervision, Project administration, Funding
acquisition.

7.2. Outlook Declaration of competing interest

For further research, we propose three distinct directions. First, as
mentioned in the introduction, battery sizing is typically driven by
practical considerations such as minimum range requirements in
emergency situations. However, it might be reasonable to extend the
optimization problem to include a decision variable for the battery ca­
pacity, particularly for HEV applications that require no or only a small
all-electric range. This approach would allow us to study the influence of
the heating strategy on the trade-off between acquisition and operating
costs.
Second, although the case study presented in this paper is based on a
battery-assisted trolley bus in a winter scenario, we expect the method to
also be applicable to other drivetrain technologies and thermal energy
buffers, for example the whole passenger cabin or refrigerated freight
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the Swiss Federal Office of Energy
(SFOE, contract number SI/501979–01) and the industrial partners
Carrosserie HESS AG and Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich (VBZ).
We would specifically like to thank Bruno Lemoine and Prof. Andrea
Vezzini of Bern University of Applied Sciences (BFH) for proofreading
the manuscript and their support in using the OpenSesame models and
software.

Appendix A. List of Symbols

Model Constants:

AF Vehicle frontal area 8.67 m2

Cb Linear battery OCV model parameter 1.41 kF
cD Aerodynamic drag coefficient 0.9 –
cp Thermal capacity of heating water 4.18 kJ
kgK
cR Rolling friction coefficient 0.009 –
E0 Linear battery OCV model parameter 290 MJ
[ ]
Eb , Eb Battery energy limits [15.8, 50.2] kWh
g Earth’s gravitational acceleration 9.81 m
s2
Ig (v) Speed-dependent upper limit of grid current A
mempty Empty vehicle mass 18.8 t
mrot Equivalent mass of rotational inertia 990 kg
Napprox Number of planes for lin. degrad. approx. 40 –
P0 Converter idle losses 200 W
p0,i, p1,i, p2,i Parameters of lin. degrad. approx. plane i
[ ]
Pb,i , Pb,i Battery power limits [ − 300, 300] kW

Qb,init Initial (undegraded) battery charge capacity 80 Ah

Rb Battery internal resistance 92 mΩ
Rg Grid line resistance 400 mΩ
top Duration of a typical trip 15 h
U0 Linear battery OCV model parameter 642 V
Ug,OC Grid OCV 680 V
δ0 Reference DOD param. for degrad. calc. 10 %
εtank Water circuit mass ratio 0.5 –
εh Heating device mass w.r.t. resistance 204 kg Ω
ηc Converter efficiency 95.0 %
ηdt Drivetrain efficiency 92.0 %
ϑb Battery temperature 17 ◦
C
(continued on next page)

15
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

(continued )
ϑdepot Temperature in the bus depot 15 ◦
C
[ ]
ϑw , ϑw Heating water temperature limits [68, 75] ◦
C
ϑ∞ Ambient temperature 0 ◦
C
κ Thermal loss factor of heating system 10.0 W
K
ρair Air density 1.23 kg
m3
Ψ0 Battery SOH for all analyses 90 %
ΨEOL Battery SOH at EOL 80 %
Parameters of the Optimization Problem:
db Battery lifetime km
t0, tf Initial and final time of optimization horizon s
Ψ Minimum final SOH –
Sizing Variables:
mw Heating water mass kg
Rh Resistance of water heating resistor Ω
Other Variables:
a Acceleration m
s2
Eb Battery energy content J
Ebrk Energy dissipated in the braking resistor J
Econs Overall energy consumption J
Eg Energy fed into the grid by the feed point J
Eh,init Energy for initial water heat-up J
Ew Heating water energy content J
Faero Aerodynamic drag force N
Fgrade Uphill driving force N
Froll Rolling friction force N
Ft Traction force N
f̂ψ Degrad. function based on OpenSesame models s− 1
h Elevation profile m
Ig Current drawn from the grid A
mpass Total passenger mass kg
mv Gross vehicle mass kg
Paux Auxiliary power (excluding heating) W
Pb Battery discharge power at the terminal W
̃b
P “Lumped” battery power, including dissipation W
Pb,i Battery source discharge power W
Pbrk Braking resistor power W
Pc,in Converter input power W
Pc,out Converter output power W
Pg Power supplied by the grid feed point W
Ph Water heating power W
Ph Upper limit of the water heating power W
Pm Electric motor power W
Preq Power request (motor and auxiliaries) W
q Battery charge level Ah
Qb Battery charge capacity Ah
Q̇h Heat consumed by the HVAC system W
Q̇loss Thermal heat loss W
t Time s
Ub,OC Battery OCV V
v Vehicle velocity m
s
α Inclination angle of the road rad
ϑw Temperature of the heating water ◦
C
χ Grid availability ∈ {0, 1} –
Ψ Battery SOH –
ψ Battery degradation s− 1

Appendix B. Battery Health Model

Appendix B.1. Degradation over a Period of Operation

To determine the battery aging of the LTO cells in our case study, we use the battery degradation models of the open-source project OpenSesame
[51], which describe the degradation ΔΨ > 0 of battery cells as a superposition of cycle and calendar aging, denoted by ΔΨcyc and ΔΨcal, respectively:
ΔΨ = ΔΨcyc + ΔΨcal . (B.1)

Cycle aging is the degradation of the battery due to charging and discharging patterns. Calendar aging, on the other hand, is assumed to be always
present, regardless of the battery current.
The cycle degradation is expressed as the sum over all Ncyc half-cycles, which are determined using the rainflow counting algorithm. For each of
these half-cycles, the degradation is calculated based on stress factors that are determined in cell tests:

16
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

∑Ncyc (
ΔΨcyc = i=1
ζcyc,ξ (ξi )⋅ζcyc,ϑb (ϑb,i )⋅ζcyc,δ (δi )⋅ζcyc,C (Ci )
) (B.2)
1
⋅ΔΨcyc,0 ⋅ δi .
2
The four stress factors ζcyc,ξ, ζcyc,ϑb , ζcyc,δ, and ζcyc,C are used to scale the degradation of a reference cycle ΔΨcyc,0 based on the various influence factors,
i.e., the cycle mean SOC ξi , the cycle mean cell temperature ϑb,i , the cycle DOD δi, and the battery discharge C-rate Ci. Note that the C-rate is defined
relative to the nominal battery capacity Qb,init, i.e.,
Ib (t)
C(t) = . (B.3)
Qb,init

The values of the stress factors are visualized in Figure B.19. The final factor 12δi enters the formulation since we are counting half-cycles with limited
DOD, while the reference cycle of the cell tests is based on a full cycle.
Similarly, the following expression describes the calendar aging:
∫ tf
ΔΨcal = ζcal,ξ (ξ(t))⋅ζ cal,ϑb (ϑb (t))⋅ψ cal,0 dt, (B.4)
t0

where the two stress factors ζcal,ξ and ζcal,ϑb scale the reference calendar degradation ψ cal,0 according to the SOC ξ(t) and the cell temperature ϑb(t),
respectively.

Fig. B.19. Cycle stress factors ζcyc (left) and calendar stress factors ζcal (right). Data from OpenSesame [51].

Appendix B.2. Instantaneous Degradation

The formulation of the optimization problem requires an expression for the instantaneous degradation of the battery ψ (t) to be able to track the
evolution of the SOH according to (12). However, the cycle-based approach introduced above is an a posteriori approach that does not directly provide
such a formulation. Hence, we derive a corresponding time-based formulation in the following.
Let us consider a specific point in time τ. For the degradation at τ, we consider a single “virtual” half-cycle, characterized by a constant battery
temperature ϑb that is equal to the temperature ϑb(τ), a mean SOC ξ that is equal to ξ(τ), the C-rate C(τ), and a constant reference DOD δ0. We can then
use eqs. (B.1), (B.2) and (B.4) to obtain an approximation of the degradation over this “virtual” cycle,
ΔΨvirt (τ) = ζcyc,ξ (ξ(τ))⋅ζcyc,ϑb (ϑb (τ))⋅ζcyc,δ (δ0 )⋅ζcyc,C (C(τ))
1
⋅ΔΨcyc,0 ⋅ δ0 (B.5)
2
+ζcal,ξ (ξ(τ))⋅ζcal,ϑb (ϑb (τ))⋅ψ cal,0 ⋅Tcyc ,

where the duration of this half-cycle is

δ0 ⋅Qb (τ) δ0 ⋅Qb (τ) δ0 ⋅Ψ(τ)
Tcyc = = = , (B.6)
|Ib (t)(τ)| |C(τ)|⋅Qb,init |C(τ)|

for the derivation of which the definition of the SOH (11) is used. Using finite differences, an approximation of the instantaneous degradation ψ
̂ (τ) is
then given by:

17
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

ΔΨvirt (τ)
ψ̂ (τ) = , (B.7)
Tcyc

which leads to the following expression:

ψ̂ (τ) = ζcyc,ξ (ξ(τ))⋅ζcyc,ϑb (ϑb (τ))⋅ζcyc,δ (δ0 )⋅ζcyc,C (C(τ))
|C(τ)|⋅ΔΨcyc,0
⋅ (B.8)
2⋅Ψ(τ)
+ζcal,ξ (ξ(τ))⋅ζcal,ϑb (ϑb (τ))⋅ψ cal,0

The above derivation can be extended for all t instead of a specific τ.

As described in section 2.3, we assume a constant battery temperature ϑb and Ψ(t) = Ψ0. Noting that ζcyc,ξ ≡ 1, we obtain
ΔΨcyc,0
Acyc = ζcyc,ξ ⋅ζcyc,ϑb (ϑb )⋅ζcyc,δ (δ0 )⋅ , (B.9)
2⋅Ψ0

Acal = ζcal,ϑb (ϑb )⋅ψ cal,0 , (B.10)

ψ̂ (t) = Acyc ⋅ζcyc,C (C(t))⋅|C(t)| + Acal ⋅ζcal,ξ (ξ(t)), (B.11)

with the new constants Acyc and Acal. Furthermore, the C-rate C(t) and the SOC ξ(t) can be expressed in terms of the optimization variables Pb,i(t) and
Eb(t) using eqs. (2), (3), (5) and (11) as follows:
Pb,i (t) Pb,i (t)
C(t) = = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅, (B.12)
Qb,init ⋅Ub,OC (t) Q ⋅ 2
⋅(Eb (t) + E0 )
b,init Cb

(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
q(t) Cb ⋅ U0 2 + C2b ⋅Eb (t) − U0
ξ(t) = = . (B.13)
Qb (t) Ψ0 ⋅Qb,init

Finally, based on the relationships above, the degradation ψ

̂ (t) can be expressed as a nonlinear function of Pb,i(t) and Eb(t):
ψ̂ (t) = f̂ψ (Pb,i (t), Eb (t)). (B.14)

Appendix C. NLP formulation of Problem 1

This section shows the conversion of the continuous-time OCP formulation of Problem 1 into a finite-dimensional convex NLP. The corresponding
conversion of Problems 0 and 2 is achieved in a very similar fashion. First, all continuous-time signals are transformed into discrete-time signals, where
k is used as the discrete time index. The forward Euler integration method is then used to discretize the oridnary differential equations (ODEs). Finally,
the NLP is formulated using direct multiple shooting. The notation we adopt in this section closely follows the ideas and notation used in Ref. [61].
For notational simplicity, we first introduce the vectors
[ ]T
̃b [k], Ph [k], Pb,i [k], ψ [k], Pg [k] ,
uk = Pc,out [k], P (C.1)

for k ∈ {0, …, N − 1} and

xk = [Eb [k], Ew [k], Ψ[k]]T , (C.2)

for k ∈ {0, …, N}. Based on these vectors, we can formulate the following vector-valued functions:
⎡ ⎤
Eb [k] − Pb,i [k]
⎢ ⎥
⎢ Ψ[k] − ψ [k] ⎥
f (xk , uk ) = ⎢
⎢ ( )
⎥,
⎥ (C.3)
⎣ κ⋅Ew [k] ⎦
Ew [k] + Ph [k] − + κ⋅(ϑw − ϑ∞ ) − Q̇h [k]
cp ⋅mw
[ ]
g(xk , uk ) = P̃b [k] + Pc,out [k] − Pm [k] − Ph [k] − Paux [k] , (C.4)

18
F. Widmer et al. eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196

⎡ ⎤
Eb [k] − Eb
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ Eb − Eb [k] ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ P b,i [k] − Pb,i
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ Pb,i − Pb,i [k] ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ − Pg [k] ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ P [k] − χ [k]⋅I ⎥
⎢ g g (v[k])⋅Ug,OC ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ − Ew [k] ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ( ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
h(xk , uk ) = ⎢
⎢
Ew [k] − cp ⋅mw ⋅ ϑw − ϑw ⎥,
⎥ (C.5)
⎢ ⎥
⎢ − Ph [k] ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 2⋅(Eb [k] + E0 ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ Ph [k] − ⎥
⎢ Cb ⋅Rh ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢ Rb ⋅Cb Pb,i [k] ̃ b [k] − Pb,i [k] ⎥
⎢ ⋅ +P ⎥
⎢ 2 (Eb [k] + E0 ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ( ) ⎥
⎢ max ⎥
⎢ i∈{1,…,Napprox } p0,i + p1,i ⋅Eb [k] + p2,i ⋅Pb,i [k] − ψ [k] ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ Rg 1 P0 ⎥
⎣ ⋅Pg [k]2 + ⋅Pc,out [k] + − Pg [k] ⎦
Ug,OC 2 ηc ηc

⎡ ⎤
Eb [0] − Eb [N]
req (x0 , xN ) = Ew [0] − Ew [N] ⎦,
⎣ (C.6)
Ψ[0] − Ψ0

rin (x0 , xN ) = [ Ψ − Ψ[N] ]. (C.7)

The above definitions can then be used to arrive at the following finite-dimensional NLP formulation of Problem 1:
∑N− 1
arg min Ew [0] + k=0
Pg [k]
u0 ,…,uN− 1

x0 ,…,xN

subject ​ to xk+1 − f (xk , uk ) = 0 ∀k ∈ {0, …, N − 1}

(C.8)
g(xk , uk ) = 0 ∀k ∈ {0, …, N − 1}
h(xk , uk ) ≤ 0 ∀k ∈ {0, …, N − 1}
req (x0 , xN ) = 0

rin (x0 , xN ) ≤ 0
By using CasADi [57], these variables and equations can be entered in a symbolic manner. The resulting problem is then automatically parsed and
sent to a large-scale nonlinear optimization solver, such as Ipopt [58].

References [9] Ebbesen S, Elbert P, Guzzella L. Battery state-of-health perceptive energy

management for hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2012;61(7):
2893–900. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2012.2203836.
[1] United Nations. For a livable climate: net-zero commitments must be backed by
[10] Ebbesen S, Dönitz C, Guzzella L. Particle swarm optimisation for hybrid electric
credible action. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/net-zero-coalition.
drive-train sizing. Int J Veh Des 2012;58(2–4):181–99. https://doi.org/10.1504/
[Accessed 1 December 2021].
IJVD.2012.047382.
[2] Ritchie H, Roser M. CO2 and greenhouse gas emissions. https://ourworldindata.org
[11] Silvas E, Hofman T, Murgovski N, Etman LFP, Steinbuch M. Review of optimization
/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions. [Accessed 29 September 2021].
strategies for system-level design in hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Veh
[3] Guzzella L, Sciarretta A. Vehicle propulsion systems. Springer-Verlag Berlin
Technol 2017;66(1):57–70. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvt.2016.2547897.
Heidelberg; 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35913-2.
[12] Serrao L, Onori S, Sciarretta A, Guezennec Y, Rizzoni G. Optimal energy
[4] Kambly KR, Bradley TH. Estimating the HVAC energy consumption of plug-in
management of hybrid electric vehicles including battery aging. In: Proceedings of
electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2014;259:117–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
the 2011 American control conference; 2011. p. 2125–30. https://doi.org/
jpowsour.2014.02.033.
10.1109/ACC.2011.5991576.
[5] Wei C, Hofman T, Caarls EI, van Iperen R. Evolution and classification of energy
[13] Feng Y, Dong Z. Optimal energy management with balanced fuel economy and
and thermal management systems in electrified powertrains. In: 2019 IEEE vehicle
battery life for large hybrid electric mining truck. J Power Sources 2020;454:
power and propulsion conference. VPPC; 2019. p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/
227948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.227948.
vppc46532.2019.8952261.
[14] López-Ibarra JA, Goitia-Zabaleta N, Herrera VI, Gazta Ñaga H, Camblong H.
[6] F. Cigarini, T.-A. Fay, N. Artemenko, D. Göhlich, Modeling and experimental
Battery aging conscious intelligent energy management strategy and sensitivity
investigation of thermal comfort and energy consumption in a battery electric bus,
analysis of the critical factors for plug-in hybrid electric buses. eTransportation
World Electr Veh J 12 (1). doi:10.3390/wevj12010007.
2020;5:100061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2020.100061.
[7] Lutsey N, Nicholas M. Update on electric vehicle costs in the United States through
[15] Anselma PG, Kollmeyer P, Lempert J, Zhao Z, Belingardi G, Emadi A. Battery state-
2030. The International Council on Clean Transportation; Apr. 2019. Tech. rep,
of-health sensitive energy management of hybrid electric vehicles: lifetime
https://theicct.org/publication/update-on-electric-vehicle-costs-in-the-united-s
prediction and ageing experimental validation. Appl Energy 2021;285:116440.
tates-through-2030/; 2019. [Accessed 2 August 2022].
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116440.
[8] Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH. Comparative environmental
[16] Hu X, Martinez CM, Yang Y. Charging, power management, and battery
life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 2013;17(1):
degradation mitigation in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: a unified cost-optimal
53–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x.

19
F. Widmer et al.
approach. Mech Syst Signal Process 2017;87:4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ymssp.2016.03.004.
[17] Opila DF. Equivalent degradation minimization strategy for balancing battery and
capacitor usage in hybrid energy storage systems for electric vehicles. In: 2017
American control conference (ACC). IEEE; 2017. p. 315–21. https://doi.org/
10.23919/acc.2017.7962972.
[18] Zhang S, Hu X, Xie S, Song Z, Hu L, Hou C. Adaptively coordinated optimization of
battery aging and energy management in plug-in hybrid electric buses. Appl
Energy 2019;256:113891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113891.
[19] Santucci A, Sorniotti A, Lekakou C. Power split strategies for hybrid energy storage
systems for vehicular applications. J Power Sources 2014;258:395–407. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.01.118.
[20] Xie S, Hu X, Qi S, Tang X, Lang K, Xin Z, Brighton J. Model predictive energy
management for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles considering optimal battery depth
of discharge. Energy 2019;173:667–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2019.02.074.
[21] Huang Y, Wang H, Khajepour A, Li B, Ji J, Zhao K, Hu C. A review of power
management strategies and component sizing methods for hybrid vehicles. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;96:132–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.07.020.
[22] Ravey A, Roche R, Blunier B, Miraoui A. Combined optimal sizing and energy
management of hybrid electric vehicles. In: 2012 IEEE transportation
electrification conference and expo (ITEC); 2012. p. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ITEC.2012.6243420.
[23] de Castro R, Pinto C, Araújo RE, Melo P, Freitas D. Optimal sizing and energy
management of hybrid storage systems. In: 2012 IEEE vehicle power and
propulsion conference; 2012. p. 321–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/
VPPC.2012.6422679.
[24] Murgovski N, Johannesson L, Sjöberg J, Egardt B. Component sizing of a plug-in
hybrid electric powertrain via convex optimization. Mechatronics 2011;22(1):
106–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2011.12.001.
[25] Egardt B, Murgovski N, Pourabdollah M, Johannesson L. Electromobility studies
based on convex optimization: design and control issues regarding vehicle
electrification. IEEE Control Syst Mag 2014;34(2):32–49. https://doi.org/10.1109/
MCS.2013.2295709.
[26] Minnerup K, Herrmann T, Steinstraeter M, Lienkamp M. Case study of holistic
energy management using genetic algorithms in a sliding window approach. World
Electr Veh J 2019;10(2):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj10020046.
[27] Romijn TCJ, Donkers MCF, Kessels JTBA, Weiland S. A distributed optimization
approach for complete vehicle energy management. IEEE Trans Control Syst
Technol 2019;27(3):964–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcst.2018.2789464.
[28] Zhang X, Ivanco A, Tao X, Wagner J, Filipi Z. Optimization of the series-HEV
control with consideration of the impact of battery cooling auxiliary losses. SAE Int
J Altern Powertrains 2014;3(2):234–43. https://doi.org/10.4271/2014-01-1904.
[29] A. Lahlou, F. Ossart, E. Boudard, F. Roy, M. Bakhouya, Optimal management of
thermal comfort and driving range in electric vehicles, Energies 13 (17). doi:
10.3390/en13174471.
[30] Roscher MA, Leidholdt W, Trepte J. High efficiency energy management in BEV
applications. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2012;37(1):126–30. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijepes.2011.10.022.
[31] Lieb J, Sawazki E, Brüll M, Bäker B. Potential of an electric brake resistor to
increase the efficiency of electric vehicles. In: 2013 world electric vehicle
symposium and exhibition (EVS27); 2013. p. 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/
EVS.2013.6914891.
[32] Pham TH, Kessels JTBA, van den Bosch PPJ, Huisman RGM, Nevels RMPA. On-line
energy and battery thermal management for hybrid electric heavy-duty truck. In:
2013 American control conference; 2013. p. 710–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/
acc.2013.6579919.
[33] Chen H, Kessels J, Weiland S. Vehicle energy management for on/off controlled
auxiliaries: fuel economy vs. switching frequency, IFAC-PapersOnLine. In: 4th
IFAC workshop on engine and powertrain control, simulation and modeling E-
COSM 2015, vol. 48; 2015. p. 217–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ifacol.2015.10.031. 15.
[34] Tara E, Shahidinejad S, Filizadeh S, Bibeau E. Battery storage sizing in a retrofitted
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2010;59(6):2786–94.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2010.2046659.
[35] Alfieri L, Bracale A, Caramia P, Iannuzzi D, Pagano M. Optimal battery sizing
procedure for hybrid trolley-bus: a real case study. Elec Power Syst Res 2019;175:
105930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2019.105930.
[36] Zhang L, Hu X, Wang Z, Sun F, Deng J, Dorrell DG. Multiobjective optimal sizing of
hybrid energy storage system for electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2018;
67(2):1027–35. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2017.2762368.
[37] Song Z, Hofmann H, Li J, Han X, Ouyang M. Optimization for a hybrid energy
storage system in electric vehicles using dynamic programing approach. Appl
Energy 2015;139:151–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.11.020.
[38] Song Z, Zhang X, Li J, Hofmann H, Ouyang M, Du J. Component sizing
optimization of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with the hybrid energy storage
system. Energy 2018;144:393–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2017.12.009.
20
eTransportation 14 (2022) 100196
[39] Herrera V, Milo A, Gaztañaga H, Etxeberria-Otadui I, Villarreal I, Camblong H.
Adaptive energy management strategy and optimal sizing applied on a battery-
supercapacitor based tramway. Appl Energy 2016;169:831–45. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.079.
[40] da Silva SF, Eckert JJ, Silva FL, Silva LC, Dedini FG. Multi-objective optimization
design and control of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle powertrain for minimization of
energy consumption, exhaust emissions and battery degradation. Energy Convers
Manag 2021;234:113909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.113909.
[41] Johannesson L, Murgovski N, Ebbesen S, Egardt B, Gelso E, Hellgren J. Including a
battery state of health model in the HEV component sizing and optimal control
problem. IFAC Proc Vol 2013;46(21):398–403. https://doi.org/10.3182/
20130904-4-jp-2042.00018.
[42] Hu X, Johannesson L, Murgovski N, Egardt B. Longevity-conscious dimensioning
and power management of the hybrid energy storage system in a fuel cell hybrid
electric bus. Appl Energy 2015;137:913–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2014.05.013.
[43] S. Xie, X. Hu, Q. Zhang, X. Lin, B. Mu, H. Ji, Aging-aware co-optimization of battery
size, depth of discharge, and energy management for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, J Power Sources 450. doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.227638.
[44] Pham H, van den Bosch P, Kessels J, Huisman R. Integrated energy and thermal
management for hybrid electric heavy duty trucks. In: 2012 IEEE vehicle power
and propulsion conference; 2012. p. 932–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/
VPPC.2012.6422772.
[45] Padovani TM, Debert M, Colin G, Chamaillard Y. Optimal energy management
strategy including battery health through thermal management for hybrid vehicles,
IFAC Proceedings Volumes. In: 7th IFAC symposium on advances in automotive
control. vol. 46; 2013. p. 384–9. https://doi.org/10.3182/20130904-4-JP-
2042.00137. 21.
[46] Sakhdari B, Azad NL. An optimal energy management system for battery electric
vehicles, 4th IFAC Workshop on Engine and Powertrain Control. Simul Model E-
COSM 2015;48:86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.10.013. 2015, 15.
[47] Pham T, Rosea B, Wilkins S. Battery peak power shaving strategy to prolong
battery life for electric buses, IFAC-PapersOnLine. In: 8th IFAC symposium on
advances in automotive control AAC 2016. vol. 49; 2016. p. 77–83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.08.012. 11.
[48] Khalik Z, Romijn TCJ, Donkers MCF, Weiland S. Effects of battery charge
acceptance and battery aging in complete vehicle energy management, 4th IFAC
Workshop on Engine and Powertrain Control. Simul Model E-COSM 2017;50(1):
2145–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.588. 2015.
[49] Bächle T, Graichen K, Buchholz M, Dietmayer K. Model predictive heating control
for electric vehicles using load prediction and switched actuators, IFAC-
PapersOnLine. In: 8th IFAC symposium on advances in automotive control AAC
2016. vol. 49; 2016. p. 406–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.08.060. 11.
[50] C. Wei, T. Hofman, E. Ilhan Caarls, R. van Iperen, A review of the integrated design
and control of electrified vehicles, Energies 13 (20). doi:10.3390/en13205454.
[51] Beyeler M, Bhoir SS, Broennimann S, Moullet Y. Open-SESAME-battery. V1.1, https
://gitlab.ti.bfh.ch/oss/esrec/open-sesame; 2022.
[52] Elbert P, Nüesch T, Ritter A, Murgovski N, Guzzella L. Engine on/off control for the
energy management of a serial hybrid electric bus via convex optimization. IEEE
Trans Veh Technol 2014;63(8):3549–59. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TVT.2014.2304137.
[53] Alyakhni A, Boulon L, Vinassa J-M, Briat O. A comprehensive review on energy
management strategies for electric vehicles considering degradation using aging
models. IEEE Access 2021;9:143922–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2021.3120563.
[54] Murgovski N, Johannesson L, Hu X, Egardt B, Sjöberg J. Convex relaxations in the
optimal control of electrified vehicles. In: 2015 American control conference
(ACC); 2015. p. 2292–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2015.7171074.
[55] Boyd S, Vandenberghe L. Convex optimization. Cambridge University Press; 2004.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804441.
[56] Bock H, Plitt K. A multiple shooting algorithm for direct solution of optimal control
problems. IFAC Proc Vol 1984;17(2):1603–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-
6670(17)61205-9.
[57] Andersson JAE, Gillis J, Horn G, Rawlings JB, Diehl M. CasADi – a software
framework for nonlinear optimization and optimal control. Math Program Comput
2019;11(1):1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12532-018-0139-4.
[58] Wächter A, Biegler L. On the implementation of an interior-point filter line-search
algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming. Math Program 2006;106:25–57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-004-0559-y.
[59] Padua D, editor. Mumps. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-0-387-09766-4_2260. 1238–1238.
[60] Bank T, Feldmann J, Klamor S, Bihn S, Sauer DU. Extensive aging analysis of high-
power lithium titanate oxide batteries: impact of the passive electrode effect.
J Power Sources 2020;473:228566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2020.228566.
[61] Gros S, Diehl M. Numerical optimal control (April 2022). URL, https://www.sy
scop.de/teaching/ss2022/numerical-optimal-control.