2022 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2022 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power

Systems Europe (EEEIC / I&CPS Europe) | 978-1-6654-8537-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEUROPE54979.2022.9854612

Modeling and experimental validation of vehicle’s

electric powertrain
Ettore Bianco
Politecnico di Torino
Torino, Italy
ettore.bianco@polito.it
ORCID:0000-0003-3653-1893
Alessandro Rizzello
Politecnico di Torino
Torino, Italy
alessandro.rizzello@polito.it
ORCID:0000-0003-0291-5549
Alessandro Ferraris
Beond Srl
Torino, Italy
alessandro.ferraris@beond.net
ORCID: 0000-0003-0712-3399
Massimiliana Carello
Politecnico di Torino
Torino, Italy
massimiliana.carello@polito.it
ORCID:0000-0003-2322-0340

Abstract— In recent years, the need to reduce CO2 emissions has engine cars. Therefore, it is possible to say that the inverter
developed a change in transports. For this reason, E-mobility has has the key role for the future global spread of electric
been increasingly adopted, causing the need to simulate the transport systems. The three-phase inverter, in fact, is an
behaviour of new vehicles. This paper proposes the assembly of an electronic device that converts an input direct voltage into a
electric vehicle prototype and the validation of the proposed symmetrical and balanced three-phase triad of output
electric powertrain model. An inverter was used to control a
voltages, making possible also the variation of amplitude and
Brushless SPM Motor and the battery pack was designed and
assembled to be compatible with the other powertrain elements. frequency; the three-phase inverter is also identified as DC-
Once the components were defined, a powertrain model was AC converter. In the automotive sector the inverter requires
developed to simulate the behaviour of the entire vehicle. The triples of three-phase voltages modulated in amplitude and
global model was validated using the results of properly made frequency.
experimental tests. A real driving cycle in real-time experiment In electric and hybrid vehicles, the static conversion of
was performed and subsequently the same driving cycle was electricity starts from the battery pack, which represents the
simulated on MATLAB/Simulink to validate the model. direct current source of electricity, and through the inverter,
which supplies triples three-phase currents and voltages, the
Keywords — Modeling; Control; Experimental validation;
electric motor is powered.
Inverters; Battery Pack; Electric motors; Electric vehicles.
The vehicle prototype used in this study has a brushless
motor, with a surface mounted permanent magnet
synchronous motor (SMPM) fed back into position. This
I. INTRODUCTION
motor consists of a stator, which is the site of the winding
In recent years the automotive world has experienced a rapid distributed three-phase, and of a rotor, which hosts the
transition due to the need for change in all the transport permanent magnets; it is driven by a three-phase inverter.
sector, which is now characterized by a greater presence of
Electric Vehicles (EV). In this context, car manufacturers
have invested heavily, in order to produce competitive
electric vehicles, both at an economic and performance level.
To equal, or even overcome, the dynamic characteristics of
combustion engine cars, electric vehicles have equipped with
advanced control techniques, which also guarantee adequacy
in terms of performance and efficiency [10]. These vehicles
have imposed little dissipative features, which has allowed a
better management and a high duration over the years.
For the traction of EV’s, the Asynchronous Motor (AM) and Fig. 1. Experimental validation process
the Brushless Motor (BM) [7] have been used. The first AM
The goals of this paper (Fig. 1) is to model an electric
is the most used , especially in the industrial sector; its use is
powertrain using the Simulink software, revamping of an
usually hindered by various problems of control, which,
existing electric vehicle prototype named the “Mulotipo”
however, have been overcome thanks to modern technique
(developped at the Politecnico of Turin). The Simulink model
[10]. The second BM, on the other hand, is diffused in the
has been validated through the experimental results of the
context of high dynamics, because of its effective control
battery pack, the inverter, the SMPM and the acceleration of
methods and the high efficiencies given by magnets placed in
the vehicle. The main components were integrated into the
the rotor, which guarantee lower losses [7]. Both motors,
“Mulotipo” and the battery pack were entirely designed and
however, needs the conversion of direct current in
assembled specifically for this vehicle. Moreover, the motor
Alternating Current (AC), which is solved by the use of an
control was carried out following a field-oriented strategy,
inverter, innovative component of the electric powertrain. In
implemented by the electromagnetic equations in d and q
particular, the inverter is responsible for the static conversion
axes.
of electricity in the vehicle, and it allows the power supply of
Finally, in this paper, it was studied the low-speed electric
the AM and the sinusoidal BM through three-phase voltage
powertrain validation process, to obtain a predictive model of
triplets.
the electric prototype behavior.
Although the inverter and the electric motor are fundamental,
This paper contributes to the state of the art thanks to the
the decisive role in the global diffusion of electric vehicles is
electromechanical validation of the whole electric vehicle by
played by the energy storage system: up to now the most
integrating the behavior of each component of the powertrain
efficient, for electric vehicles, is the battery pack, which
in a low-level realistic model.
allows to achieve autonomy comparably to combustion

978-1-6654-8537-1/22/$31.00 ©2022 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Buckinghamshire New University. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 14:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
II. ELECTRICAL POWERTRAIN MODEL
In this section are described the models of each powertrain
component and the inverter control strategy properly
developed for the simulation.
A. The Battery Pack
In an electric powertrain the energy storage is a dominant
component for the vehicle performance and autonomy. In this
study an one cell equivalent battery pack model was
implemented (Fig 2). It was used a Thevenin 2nd order circuit
model for the electric behavior, a 1st order thermal model and
a coulomb counter kinetic model for the state of charge
(SOC) estimation [11].
The Simulink battery pack model displayed the voltage
variation, depending on the temperature, the SOC estimation
and the current, flowing through the battery pack.
The Brushless SPM is an isotropic motor, so the inductance
on d axis (Ld) and the inductance on the q axis (Lq)
parameters of the motor are equivalent and called Ls as in
equation (2). Because of the isotropic behavior the output
torque has not the anisotropic component and so the torque
equation depends only on the stator current on the q axis
according to equation (4). The electrical equations (2), the
magnetic equations (3) and the relation between mechanical
and electrical angular speed (1) are also reported.
= (1)
= + + (2)
= +
(3)
=
= (4)

Where: is the rotor electrical motor angular speed, pp is

the number of pole pairs, is the rotor mechanical angular
speed, λmp is the flux of the permanent magnets on the rotor;
and C is the motor torque.
The datasheet parameters of the motor for the control are
shown in Table I.
Fig. 2. Simulink battery pack model
TABLE I. MAIN PARAMETERS OF THE BRUSHLESS SMPM MOTOR
Fig. 3 shown the battery pack equivalent circuit: the Voc
represents the open circuit voltage, the R series represents the Parameter
Brushless BLR 180/1,5 ACM
voltage drop going to load, and the RC circuits represent the Engineering
cell behavior on slow and fast transients, according to [16]. Rated power # $% 15 ()
Rated torque * $% 15 +
Rated speed , 7,000 #0
Back EMF 52 2 3
Peak current 4 360 72 3
Rated current , 180 72 3
Rated voltage 9, 72 :
Poles P 8
Phase-phase stator inductance 0.039 =
Phase-phase stator resistance 5.6 Ω

In order to run the simulation (using the model reported in

Fig. 4) it was necessary to know , , , ? and the
Fig. 3. 2nd order Thevenin model [2] calculations has been made according to the equations (5)-
(8):
The themal model and the SOC estimation model are DE D
negligible due to the low speed and the low power involved = = 0.0028 Fℎ (5)
2
in the experimental tests. DE D
= = 0.0195 Fℎ (6)
2
B. Brushless SMPM motor modeling
HI0J√2
Fig 4 represents the model implemented based on the electric = = 0.0061 Vs/rad (7)
√3
equations (1)-(4) describing the motor behavior depending on V V V
? =? OP + ?PQ$ + 4 ?SD TU + U [6] (8)
electrical parameters: Rs is the stator one phase resistance, Ls
is the stator one phase inductance, is the magnet flux and
C. Inverter model
pp are the pole pairs.
For the inverter modeling (Fig. 5) was used a customizable
Simulink block with a programmable S-function with the
purpose of programming with MATLAB. In this case-study
the inverter model was programmed as an average model, so
the output voltages were not the real chopped voltages, but
the fundamental harmonic was the real one with a ripple;
therefore the electromechanical transformation in the motor
was the correct one except a negligible part.
Fig. 4. SMPM Brushless motor d-q axis model

Authorized licensed use limited to: Buckinghamshire New University. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 14:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Fig. 5. Inverter Simulink Model with programmable inverter
The duty cycles of the 3 phases, the enable signal, the battery
voltage WX and the three phase currents, given as input to the
inverter model, are shown in Fig. 5. The outputs of the model
were the three phase voltages imposed to the electric motor.
D. Control strategy
After the implementation of the models of each component
of the powertrain, they were integrated with the control
strategy adopted by the inverter to control the SMPM motor.
The logic of the control is reported in the Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Brushless SPM motor control in d-q axes
In the control there were 2 current loops and 1 speed loop.
The reference of the was always 0 because it did not make
torque contribution according to equation (4).
The reference was set by the external speed control loop in
order to obtain the correct torque reference to reach the speed
target. The speed reference was set by a mission speed
profile. Each loop was controlled by a PI control
appropriately tuned, according to the following equations (8)-
(12) [13].
( Z
YZ = (8)
( Z
[Z = (9)
(ZZ
Y\ = 2]^Y\
( \ = Y\ ∗?
Y\
(Z\ = ( \ (12)
4
In which: YZ is the crossover pulsation fixed one decade
before the switching frequency of the DC/AC converter. [Z
is the pulsation of the mechanic pole of the motor, ( Z and (ZZ
are the proportional constant and the integral constant of the
PI regulator of the current loop.
The speed loop must be designed one decade before the
current loop for stability reasons; the equation related to the
speed loop are (10)-(12) in which Y\ is the speed loop
pulsation, ^Y\ is the frequency of the speed loop, ( \ and (Z\ are
the proportional and integral constants of the loop and ? is
the total inertia seen by the motor.
To obtain a precise simulation compared to the experimental
test results, it was implemented the control logic of the
inverter and it was included the time discretization that comes
into play in real-time applications such as automotive. In this
Authorized licensed use limited to: Buckinghamshire New University. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 14:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
way, the behavior of the microcontroller and the
consequences, that influence the electrical and mechanical
quantities involved, were included in the simulation. In this
type of simulation, the clock frequency, which is typically
between 40 and 180 MHz, was modeled; this gave rise to
delays that were accentuated by other components, such as
the computing power of the microprocessor and the analog to
digital (A/D) conversion time of the analog signals. These
delays mean that the execution of the commands always take
place with a delay period compared to the sampling of the
measures necessary for the control.
Fig. 7. Powertrain digital control Simulink model
Fig. 7 shown the digital control that performed the FOC
control in a discrete time with the model of a real encoder
Sin-Cos, used for the validation, that gave the position with a
discretization according to [12].
III. ELECTRIC POWERTRAIN PROTOTYPING
The experimental application was identified in order to
validate the theoretical model. Fig.8 shows the electric
vehicle prototype (Mulotipo) used for the experimental tests,
implementing a new electric powertrain to study the
compatibility of every powertrain component for an electrical
point of view and to propose structural considerations for
statical and dynamic powertrain behavior to obtain the correct
structural stiffness.
(10)
(11)
Fig. 8. Electric vehicle prototype “Mulotipo”
A. Battery pack design and assembly
To have the correct voltage to supply the inverter for a low
voltage application, it was decided to design and to assemble
a battery pack, which is shown in Fig. 9. In particular the main
components of the battery pack are: two main contactors, a
precharge contactor, a fuse, a DC/DC converter, a shunt
resistor and a Battery Management System, composed by the
Master and the Slave according to [14].
The battery pack was composed by 16 LiFePO4 prismatic
cells, 52 of nominal voltage, characteristics of which are
shown in Table II.
 For the torque transmission to the wheel, it was used a
homokinetic joints for the wheel connections, and a tripod
joint for gearbox connections.
The vehicle sensorization was mandatory for the validation
process, thus the battery sensors were used to know the
voltage and the current flowing in the battery pack (Fig. 9);
in addition, the inverter sensors and a hall effect current
sensor, shown in Fig. 12, were used to carry out the
experimental tests.

Fig. 9. Battery pack prototype

TABLE II. PARAMETERS OF THE LIFEPO4 CELLS

Parameter Value
Model J#1007ℎ − 7
Capacity 100 7ℎ
Nominal Voltage 3.2
Overvoltage limit 3.6
Undervoltage limit 2.5 Fig. 12. Hall effect sensor on one motor phase
Maximum charging current (60s) 2
Maximum discharging current (60s) 5 IV. RESULTS
Operating temperature −30 ° 55 °
Mass 2.1 (b A. Experimental Tests
B. Powertrain components After the vehicle sensorization, acceleration and braking tests
were conducted; in Fig. 13 it is shown the acquired battery
Fig. 10 shows the electric brushless SMPM motor and the
pack current trend.
three-phase inverter.
16
14
12
10
Current [A]

8
6
4
2
0
Fig. 10. SMPM Motor (left) and Inverter SEVCON Gen 4 Size 6 (right) -2 0 500 1000 1500 2000
-4
The electric motor was already connected with a mechanic Time [s]
reducer, manufactured by Oerlikon Graziano, to increase the
torque on wheel by a transmission ratio of 9.995. Fig. 13. Battery Pack current

C. Electric powertrain assembly and sensorization
Afterwards it was necessary a correct design of the total
powertrain assembly in order to reach the correct rigidity. It
was decided to design three structural flanges: two to support
the motor vertically and a tie rod to contrast the motor torque
without displacements. In Fig. 11 it is shown the CAD design
and the final powertrain assembly.
The maximum battery current reached was 13 A and the
maximum regenerative braking current was -3 A, in which
the motor works as a generator. Then it is shown the battery
pack voltage in Fig. 14, initially connected to the battery pack
SOC trend in Fig.15, according to [15].
57
56
Voltage [V]

55
54
53
52
51
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Fig. 11. Motor and Gearbox CAD design (left) and final powertrain Time [s]
assembly (right)
Fig. 14. Battery Pack voltage

Authorized licensed use limited to: Buckinghamshire New University. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 14:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 B. Powertrain model validation
101
The validation of the model was obtained with a simulation
State of Charge [%]

100 of a maximum acceleration with a step of speed reference that

99 represent 11km/h of vehicle speed. In Fig. 18 are represented
the torque and speed behavior.
98
97
96
95
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time [s]
Fig. 15. Battery pack SOC

In Fig.16 is displayed the power that was related to the one of

the current, because of the low power involved and the
consequent constancy of the battery pack voltage.
Fig. 18. Validating Simulation at maximum acceleration

0.8 The maximum torque reached was 7 Nm, according to the

0.7 torque limitations performed by the inverter, and the resistive
0.6 torque was set to 6,14 Nm, according to equation (13) and
0.5 [6].
Power [kW]

0.4 b^PQ
#$ = = $ (13)
0.3 cPQ
0.2 Where: #$ is the friction power, $ is the friction torque, is
0.1 the vehicle mass, b is the gravitational acceleration, ^PQ is the
0 coefficient of friction between tire and asphalt (equal to
-0.1 0 0.011), and cPQ is the efficiency of the gearbox.
500 1000 1500 2000
-0.2 The time duration of the acceleration was 47 seconds.
Time [s] The comparison between the motor phase currents simulated
and measured is shown in Fig. 19 and Fig 20.
Fig. 16. Battery pack power

The maximum power measured was 700 W and the mechanic

power at the maximum speed (limited for the test at 11 km/h)
is 714 W, according to the equation (13):
# = (13)
Fig.17 shown the motor phase current, provided by the hall
effect sensor. The peak sinusoidal current reached in the
phase of the motor was 190 A. The regenerative braking
current was limited by the inverter at 40 A of peak.
It is important to note the maximum acceleration in
correspondence of the current saturation and then the exit
from saturation when the speed target is reached. Fig. 19. Three phase motor current simulated

Fig. 17. One phase motor current Fig. 20. Single phase motor current mesured

Authorized licensed use limited to: Buckinghamshire New University. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 14:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 The peak current simulated reached 180 A the measured one
was equle to 185 A. The frequency simulated was 66,7 Hz,
the measured one was 62,5 Hz.
In Table III the experimental test results were shown from a
validation accuracy point of view.
TABLE III. EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION TEST RESULTS
Parameter Accuracy
Phase motor current amplitude 2.8%
Phase motor current frequency 6%
Maximum electric power 2%
Voltage RMS 5%
Acceleration time 2.1%
V. CONCLUSION
This paper presents a powertrain model that has been
validated in terms of experimental results of voltages,
currents and vehicle performance agreed with the theoretical
simulations (TABLE III).
A Simulink model has been implemented to simulate the
whole powertrain behavior; the parameters used for the
simulation derive from experimental electromechanical
measures. A vehicle prototype has been designed and
assembled to perform the experimental dynamic tests.
The aim of this study is to compare the simulation results with
the experimental ones, in order to obtain the model
validation.
For the SMPM brushless motors used, while a field-oriented
control technique was adopted by the inverter. The voltage of
the battery pack was variable, according to the absorbed
current and the SOC, in negligible way compared to the
dynamic variations of current, also thanks to the low dynamic
involved in the limitation of absorbable power. The choice of
not adopting a cooling of the battery pack was validated by
acquiring the maximum temperature, constant and close with
the temperature environment during all the study, because
dissipable heat was created by the currents supplied. High
currents, not so far from the nominal currents even with low
dynamics, were presented into the electric motor; for this
reason, to carry out efficiency tests of long duration, it is
advisable to provide for forced water cooling as expected in
the motor design under nominal conditions.
VI. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Various future developments could be departed from this
research: as regards the simulations, it could be entered the
model of the battery pack and the thermal models of the
components, in order to obtain a validation of the model, also
from the point of view of efficiency. Through prolonged
cycles it could be possible to obtain a variation of the SOC to
make significant the voltage change during the current supply
of the battery pack. Furthermore, it could be possible to
measure the variation of some of the parameters of the model
as a function of the temperature.
For the future, using a torque meter, the real inertia of the
vehicle could be measured and used for the simulation
towards obtaining results more faithful to reality.
Various thermal and chemical parameters are usually
required to update the simulations of the battery pack, hence
various experimental tests on the cells could be required.
Authorized licensed use limited to: Buckinghamshire New University. Downloaded on April 11,2023 at 14:45:10 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
To obtain a validation of the model at higher speeds, it could
be necessary to turn off the drivability of the inverter, which
has limited the speed to 11 km/h; in this way it could be
possible to carry out experimental tests at various speeds and
also at the maximum speed. The new model could include
aerodynamic forces and gravitational forces not negligible in
case of slopes.
REFERENCES
[1] Yildirim, M., Polat, M., and Kürüm, H., “A survey on comparison of electric
motor types and drives used for electric vehicles,” 2014 16th International Power
Electronics and Motion Control Conference and Exposition, 218–223, 2014,
doi:10.1109/EPEPEMC.2014.6980715.
[2] A.Rizzello, S.Scavuzzo, A.Ferraris, A.G.Airale, M.Carello e E.Bianco, Dynamic
Electro-Thermal Li-ion Battery Model for Control Algorithms. International
Conference on Electrical, Computer, Communications and Mechatronics
Engineering, ICECCME 2021, DOI: 10.23919/AEIT50178.2020.9241107
[3] V. Ramadesigan et al. «Modelling and simulation of Lithium-Ion batteries from
a system engineering perspective». In: Journal of Electrochemical Society
(2012).
[4] X. Lin et al. «A lumped-parameter electro-thermal model for cylindrical
batteries». In: Journal of Power Source 257 (nov. 2014).
[5] H. He, R. Xiong e J. Fan. «Evaluation of Lithim-Ion Battery Equivalent Circuit
Models for State of Charge Estimation by an Experimental Approach». In:
Energies (mar. 2011).
[6] G. Genta e L. Morello, The automotive chassis Vol.2.
[7] Pellegrino, G., Vagati, A., Guglielmi, P., and Boazzo, B., “Performance
Comparison Between Surface-Mounted and Interior PM Motor Drives for
Electric Vehicle Application,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 59(2):803–811, 2012,
doi:10.1109/TIE.2011.2151825.
[8] Cittanti, D., Ferraris, A., Airale, A., Fiorot, S., Scavuzzo, S., and Carello, M.,
“Modeling Li-ion batteries for automotive application: A trade-off between
accuracy and complexity,” IEEE, ISBN 978-88-87237-26-9: 1–8, 2017,
doi:10.23919/EETA.2017.7993213.
[9] Ye, H., Yang, Y., and Emadi, A., “Traction inverters in hybrid electric vehicles,”
2012 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo (ITEC), 1–6,
2012, doi:10.1109/ITEC.2012.6243442.
[10] M. Abassi;A. Khlaief;O. Saadaoui;A. Chaari;M. Boussak, Performance analysis
of FOC and DTC for PMSM drives using SVPWM technique. 16th International
Conference on Sciences and Techniques of Automatic Control and Computer
Engineering (STA) 2015, DOI: 10.1109/STA.2015.7505167
[11] Bart Homan;Gerard J.M. Smit;Richard P. van Leeuwen;Marnix V. ten
Kortenaar;B. V. Ten. A comprehensive model for battery State of Charge
prediction IEEE Manchester PowerTech 2017, DOI:
10.1109/PTC.2017.7980943
[12] Y. Fu;E. Gilson;J.L. Debauche;F. Labrique;H. Buyse. Current control in fully
digital VSI fed SMPM synchronous motor drive systems..27th Annual IEEE
Power Electronics Specialists Conference. Volume: 2. 1996, DOI:
10.1109/PESC.1996.548790
[13] Pillay P. and R. Krishnan, Modeling, simulation, and analysis of permanent-
magnet motor drives.The permanent-magnet synchronous motor drive, IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol. 25, No. 2, 265- 273, 1989.
[14] A. Rizzello, S. Scavuzzo, A. Ferraris, A.G. Airale, M. Carello, “Electrothermal
Battery Pack Model for Automotive Application: Design and Validation”, 2020
AEIT International Conference of Electrical and Electronic Technologies for
Automotive (AEIT AUTOMOTIVE), Turin – Italy, 18-20 November, 2020
(Virtual), ISBN: 978-8-8872-3749-8, DOI:
10.23919/AEITAUTOMOTIVE50086.2020.9307377.
[15] A. Rizzello, S. Scavuzzo, A. Ferraris, A.G. Airale, M. Carello, “Temperature-
Dependent Thévenin Model of a LiIon Battery for Automotive Management and
Control”, 2020 IEEE International Conference on Environment and Electrical
Engineering and 2020 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power Systems Europe
(EEEIC / I&CPS Europe), Madrid (Spain), 9-12 june 2020, ISBN: 978-1-7281-
7455-6, DOI: 10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEurope49358.2020.9160544.
[16] A. Rizzello, S. Scavuzzo, A. Ferraris, A.G. Airale, M. Carello, Dynamic Electro-
Thermal Li-ion Battery Model for Control Algorithms”, 2020 AEIT International
Annual Conference (AEIT), 23-25 september 2020, Catania – Italy, ISBN: 978-
8-8872-3747-4; DOI: 10.23919/AEIT50178.2020.9241107.