See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/3332352

Fuzzy logic control for parallel hybrid vehicles

Article  in  Control Systems Technology, IEEE Transactions on · June 2002

DOI: 10.1109/87.998036 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
501 7,170

3 authors, including:

Mutasim Salman
General Motors Company
98 PUBLICATIONS   1,948 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

vehicle health management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mutasim Salman on 15 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

460 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002
Fuzzy Logic Control for Parallel Hybrid Vehicles
Niels J. Schouten, Mutasim A. Salman, and Naim A. Kheir
Abstract—In this paper, a fuzzy logic controller is developed
for hybrid vehicles with parallel configuration. Using the driver
command, the state of charge of the energy storage, and the
motor/generator speed, a set of rules have been developed, in
a fuzzy controller, to effectively determine the split between
the two powerplants: electric motor and internal combustion
engine. The underlying theme of the fuzzy rules is to optimize the
operational efficiency of all components, considered as one system.
Simulation results have been used to assess the performance of
the controller. A forward-looking hybrid vehicle model was used
for implementation and simulation of the controller. Potential
fuel economy improvement has been shown by using fuzzy logic,
relative to other controllers, which maximize only the efficiency
of the engine.
Index Terms—Control strategies, emissions, fuel economy, fuzzy
logic, hybrid vehicles, optimization.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE search for improved fuel economy, reduced emission,
and affordable vehicles, without sacrificing vehicle per-
formance, safety, reliability, and other conventional vehicle at-
tributes has made the hybrid technology (both thermal and elec-
trical motorization) one of the challenges for the automotive
industry. Hybrid systems, using a combination of an internal
combustion engine (ICE) and electric motor (EM), have the po-
tential of improving fuel economy by operating the ICE in the
optimum efficiency range and by making use of regenerative
braking during deceleration.
Within the last two decades, the automotive industry has in-
creasingly developed vehicles with hybrid power-trains. Many
concept vehicles, with several hybrid configurations, have been
presented by several auto manufacturers. Few manufacturers
have actually developed or have plans to develop hybrid vehi-
cles for mass production [1]–[3].
There are three different types of hybrid systems, (see [2], [4]
for details):
• Series Hybrid: In this configuration, an ICE-generator
combination is used for providing electrical power to the
EM and the battery.
• Parallel Hybrid: The ICE in this scheme is mechanically
connected to the wheels, and can therefore directly supply
mechanical power to the wheels. The EM is added to the
drivetrain in parallel to the ICE, so that it can supplement
the ICE torque.
Manuscript received February 23, 2000; revised September 14, 2001. Man-
uscript received in final form January 28, 2002. Recommended by Associate
Editor M. Jankovic. This work was supported by Partnership for New Genera-
tion of Vehicles, under contract to Oakland University.
N. J. Schouten and N. A. Kheir are with the Electrical and Systems Engi-
neering Department, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309 USA.
M. A. Salman is with General Motors Corporation, Warren, MI 48090 USA.
Publisher Item Identifier S 1063-6536(02)03420-6.
1063-6536/02$17.00 © 2002 IEEE
• Series-Parallel Combined System: Toyota Prius is an ex-
ample of this so-called dual system.
Because of the importance and potential benefits of the hy-
brid technology, many of the national laboratories, research in-
stitutions, and universities are actively involved in this research
area. Hybrid technology is also one of the research topics for
a partnership between United States government and the auto-
motive industry, i.e., Partnership for a New Generation of Ve-
hicles (PNGV). PNGV was established with the objective to
develop a new generation of vehicles. These future vehicles
should achieve up to three times todays average fuel economy
(80 mi/gal 34 km/l), without compromising consumer expec-
tations with respect to performance, comfort, safety, quality, and
cost of ownership.
In order to achieve these goals, it is very important to opti-
mize the architecture and components of the hybrid vehicle, but
as important is the energy management strategy that is used to
control the complete system. The energy management strategy
is implemented by a power controller. It controls the energy flow
between all components, and optimizes power generation and
conversion in the individual components.
The objective of this paper is to develop a power controller
for a parallel hybrid vehicle (PHV) that will optimize the fuel
economy. PHV power controllers presented in the past [2], [5]
only optimize the ICE operation, thus not using the full potential
of hybrid technology. The power controller presented here will
optimize the operation of all major PHV components: ICE, EM,
and battery.
For the implementation of the controller, fuzzy logic has
been used. Previous research at Oakland University [6], [7]
and Ohio State University [8], [9] already indicated that fuzzy
logic control is very suitable for hybrid vehicle control. It is
a good method for realizing an optimal tradeoff between the
efficiencies of all components of the PHV. Fuzzy logic control
is tolerant to imprecise measurements and to component
variability. It also gives a systematic methodology for the
development of a rule-based energy management strategy.
Section II of the paper, explains the basics of parallel hybrid
vehicles, and briefly describes the simulation model. The energy
management strategy is presented in Section III, followed by the
description of the fuzzy logic power controller in Section IV. Fi-
nally, the simulation results and a brief analysis of these results
are presented in Section V.
II. BASICS OF PHVs
Fig. 1 presents a block diagram of a PHV with an EM and an
ICE. For this particular configuration, the ICE and EM power
are combined downstream of the transmission. Alternatively, the
power could also be combined upstream of the transmission.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002
Fig. 1. Block diagram of the parallel hybrid vehicle.
For both the upstream and downstream configuration, there
are five different ways to operate the system, depending on the
flow of energy: 1) provide power to the wheels with only the
ICE; 2) only the EM; or 3) both the ICE and the EM simultane-
ously; 4) charge the battery, using part of the ICE power to drive
the EM as a generator (the other part of ICE power is used to
drive the wheels); 5) slow down the vehicle by letting the wheels
drive the EM as a generator that provides power to the battery
(regenerative braking).
A power controller is needed to manage the flow of energy
between all components, while taking into account the energy
available in the battery. The power controller adds the capability
for the components to work together in harmony, while at the
same time optimizes the operating points of the individual com-
ponents. This is clearly an added complexity not found in con-
ventional vehicles.
For controller analysis and design, the PNGV systems
analysis toolkit (PSAT) models [10] are used to simulate the
PHV in the Matlab/Simulink environment. These models were
developed under direction and contributions of the three major
United States car companies (DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and
General Motors) and the United States government. The model
architecture is “forward looking,” which is much more suitable
for controller analysis and design than a backward looking
architecture (see [11] for a discussion on forward and backward
looking models, and see [4], [12] for a description of backward
looking models).
Apart from the model of the PHV, PSAT also includes a
model of a driver, and a set of driving cycles given as speed
versus time profiles. The driver’s objective is to track the
speed versus time profile. The driver achieves his objective
by modulating the brake and accelerator pedals. The power
controller uses these driver inputs to compute the commands
for the several local controllers, such as the ICE, EM, battery,
and transmission controllers.
The fuel economy for composite urban/highway travel is
computed by letting the driver track the profiles described
in the SAE J1711 standard. The composite fuel economy
(Composite_FE) is given as
Composie FE city FE highway FE
The city-driving test standard starts from ambient initial con-
ditions (also known as “cold start”). It is composed of two urban
cycles separated by a 10-min soak. In our analysis, the engine
is assumed to be warm and only the second urban cycle is used.
For the highway cycle only one cycle with warmed-up engine
is used. In order to have a meaningful fuel economy value, it is
461
TABLE I
MINIMUM VEHICLE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS STATED BY PNGV
important to have the battery SOC charge-neutral for each of the
cycles.
The specific PHV configuration, used throughout the paper,
consists of the following components:
• compression ignition direct injection (CIDI) engine:
55 kW;
• permanent magnet motor: 20 kW continuous, 40 kW peak;
• advanced battery: 40 kW, 2 kWh;
• manual transmission: five speed;
• total test vehicle mass: 1100 kg.
The size of the components was chosen to achieve the PNGV
vehicle performance requirements given in Table I.
III. ENERGY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
This section describes the energy management strategy,
which is the philosophy behind the power controller. The
energy in the system should be managed in such a way that:
1) The driver inputs (from brake and accelerating pedals) are
satisfied consistently (driving the PHV should not “feel”
different from driving a conventional vehicle).
2) The battery is sufficiently charged at all times.
3) The overall system efficiency of the four basic compo-
nents (ICE, EM, battery, and transmission) is optimized.
While the PHV is operated, the power controller should de-
termine how much power is needed to drive the wheels based on
the driver inputs, and how much is needed to charge the battery.
Then it should split the power between ICE and EM. If the bat-
tery needs to be charged, negative power needs to be assigned to
the EM, and the ICE should provide the power for both driving
the wheels and charging the battery.
The power-split strategy can be used to optimize the effi-
ciency of all four basic components of the PHV, because it deter-
mines the operating points of the components. Once the power
is split in an optimal way, the power generation/conversion of
the individual components also has to be optimized. To identify
the optimal operating points, the efficiency maps of the compo-
nents were used.
A. Efficiency Maps
Fig. 2 presents a contour plot of the efficiency of a generic
CIDI engine in the speed-torque plane. Superimposed on the
contour plot is the optimal efficiency curve. For a given ICE
power level, the optimal efficiency curve defines the optimal
462
Fig. 2. Efficiency map and optimal curve of the ICE. The arrows indicate
increasing efficiency.
Fig. 3. Efficiency map, continuous and peak power curves of the EM. The
arrows indicate increasing efficiency.
operating point in the speed-torque plane. Once the optimal
speed and torque are known, the torque is controlled by varying
the throttle angle and the speed by shifting gears of the auto-
mated manual transmission (note that for a given vehicle speed,
a higher gear number will result in a lower engine speed).
For the generic CIDI map used in this paper, the ICE effi-
ciency on the optimal curve is highest for engine speeds between
230 and 320 rad/s, corresponding to an ICE power between 30
and 50 kW, with the absolute optimum at 47 kW. Therefore, the
power-split strategy should preferably result in an ICE power
level in this range. The efficiency on the curve is lowest for
very low and very high engine speeds; therefore the ICE power
should preferably not be below 6 kW or over 50 kW.
Fig. 3 presents a contour plot of the efficiency of the per-
manent magnet motor also in the speed-torque plane. The effi-
ciency plot for motoring and generating mode is the same, only
the sign of the torque is reversed. Superimposed on the plot are
the continuous and peak power curves.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002
Fig. 4. Efficiency map of the battery. The arrows indicate increasing efficiency.
Fig. 5. Block diagram of the energy flow: (1) mechanical path and
(2) electrical path.
The EM speed is directly related to vehicle speed, because
it cannot be controlled by gear shifting. Therefore, the EM ef-
ficiency can only be optimized, by optimizing the power at a
given EM speed. The efficiency is optimal for EM speeds be-
tween 320 and 430 rad/s. The optimal power for this region is
approximately 10 kW.
Fig. 4 presents a generic efficiency plot of an advanced bat-
tery in the state of charge (SOC)-power plane. It can easily be
seen that the battery operates most efficiently for high SOC and
low power levels. For power-split control, this indicates that the
SOC should be as high as possible by frequently charging at low
power level. In this study, it is assumed that the highest admis-
sible SOC is 0.9 for charging, and 0.97 for regenerative braking.
B. Power Split Strategy
Now that the efficiency characteristics of the components are
known, it is possible to formulate the power-split strategy. The
difference between using the ICE or the EM to drive the wheels
is explained in Fig. 5. When the ICE is used (path 1), the en-
ergy flows directly from the ICE through the transmission to
the wheels. When the EM is used (path 2), energy first flows
from the ICE through the transmission to the EM, operated as
a generator, for charging the battery; later the energy will flow
from the battery to the EM, operated as motor, to the wheels.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002
Fig. 6. Simplified block diagram of the power controller.
In path 1 the mechanical power produced by the ICE will
immediately be used to drive the wheels. In path 2 the same
mechanical power will be converted to electrical, chemical,
electrical, and back to mechanical. Inherent to these power
conversions are losses. These additional losses considerably
lower the efficiency of using the EM for driving the wheels.
Therefore, using the EM (path 2) will only be efficient in a few
(extreme) situations, when directly using the ICE (path 1) is
very inefficient.
The minimum losses due to power conversions are deter-
mined by the efficiency of the EM, first used as a generator
and then as a motor, and of the battery, first used to store and
then to release energy. The maximum round-trip efficiency
of the battery used in our simulations is 0.95 and of the EM
(motor/generator) 0.88, so that the maximum efficiency of the
power conversions in path 2 is 84% (minimum additional losses
16%). Therefore, it is only justified to use the EM (path 2), in
the cases that directly using the ICE (path 1) is at least 16% less
efficient than using the ICE in path 2 (for charging the battery).
For a good energy management strategy the average ICE ef-
ficiency in path 2 (ICE used for charging the battery), will be
close to the optimal ICE efficiency. Using the ICE efficiency
map (Fig. 2), it was determined that the efficiency on the op-
timal curve only drops below 16% of the absolute optimum for
power levels below 6 kW and over 50 kW. Therefore, when the
power command is below 6 kW, only the EM is to be used to
drive the wheels. Between 6 and 50 kW, only the ICE is to be
used to drive the wheels, and the ICE can also produce addi-
tional power to charge the battery. When the power command is
over 50 kW, the EM is to be used to complement the ICE, be-
cause in this case the ICE is again very inefficient and close to
its maximum (55 kW).
The EM power for driving the wheels is computed using this
strategy. When the driver power command is between 6 and
50 kW, the EM power for charging the battery still needs to
be optimized. The next section discusses how the driver power
command is computed and how fuzzy logic is used to compute
the optimal generator power.
IV. FUZZY LOGIC POWER CONTROLLER
This section first discusses the basics of the fuzzy logic con-
troller that was used to implement the power controller, and then
the power controller itself will be presented in more detail.
A. Fuzzy Logic Control Basics
The general energy management strategy described in the
previous section has been implemented using fuzzy logic
463
TABLE II
RULE BASE OF THE FUZZY LOGIC CONTROLLER
[13]–[16]. Fig. 6 presents a block diagram of the power con-
troller, the fuzzy logic controller (FLC) being the main part.
The basic idea of an FLC is to formulate human knowledge and
reasoning, which can be represented as a collection of if–then
rules, in a way tractable for computers. Table II presents a list
of if–then rules that represent the energy management strategy
described in the previous section (a description of the rule
base will follow in the next section). The variables in Table II
preceding “then”: SOC, , and , correspond to the
inputs of the FLC (Fig. 6): battery state of charge, driver power
command, and EM speed, respectively. The variables following
“then”: (generator power), and scaling factor correspond
to the outputs.
The first part of a rule (preceding “then”), called the
antecedent, specifies the condition (i.e., the combination of
inputs) for which a rule holds. The second part (following
“then”), called the consequent, is the corresponding control
action, i.e., the controller output. The antecedents in Table II
contain linguistic terms (low, high, optimal, etc.) that reflect
human knowledge of the PHV. The antecedents are defined as a
combination of individual conditions, using the logical AND and
NOT operators (in general, it is also possible to use the logical
OR). The linguistic terms, the connectives, and the if–then
relations need to be defined in a way tractable for computers.
The linguistic terms are represented by fuzzy sets. Consider
the variable “driver power command” in Fig. 7. This variable is
represented by the linguistic terms “normal” and “high.” These
linguistic terms are represented by two fuzzy sets that are de-
fined by the two membership functions in Fig. 7. The member-
ship functions define the degree of membership of the vari-
464 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002
Fig. 7. Membership functions for driver power command.
able in the two fuzzy sets. For driver power command larger than
50 kW the degree of membership in the fuzzy set “high.”
equals 1 and the degree of membership in the fuzzy set “normal”
equals 0. For normal driver power command less than
30 kW, it is the other way around. One can imagine that there
is a gradual transition from normal to high driver power com-
mand. This transition is represented by the overlapping interval
in Fig. 7 (between 30 and 50 kW). The values in this interval
belong to both fuzzy sets with various degrees of membership,
e.g., 45 kW belongs to “normal” with membership 0.25 and to
“high” with membership 0.75.
In order to work with the fuzzy rules in Table II the fuzzy
sets need to be combined using the logical connectives AND and
NOT (and in general also OR). For this purpose, the logical con-
nectives from conventional Boolean logic have been extended
to their fuzzy equivalents. There are several ways to implement
these fuzzy equivalents, but in general the minimum operator is
used for AND [e.g., ], the simple comple-
ment (e.g., ) for NOT, and the maximum operator
for OR [e.g., ].
Using the fuzzy sets and the fuzzy set operators, it is possible
to design a fuzzy reasoning system (inference system) that can
act as a fuzzy controller. The reasoning mechanism used in this
paper can be separated in four main steps.
1) Fuzzification: The membership degrees of the three input
values of the FLC are computed using the membership
functions (Figs. 7–9).
2) Degree of Fulfillment: The degree of fulfillment for the
antecedent of each rule (Table II) is computed using
the fuzzy logic operators. This degree of fulfillment
determines to which degree the th rule is valid. For
example: Table II, rule 3: (SOC),
1 .
3) Inference: This operation represents the if–then implica-
tion. The degree of fulfillment of the antecedent of each
rule is used to modify the consequent of that rule accord-
ingly. This is done by multiplying the degree of fulfill-
ment of the antecedent with the consequent of
rule . For example Table II, rule 2: kW.
4) Aggregation: For each controller output , the results
of the inference step are combined into a single value.
This is done by taking the average of the inference re-
sults weighted by the degrees of fulfillment of the rules.
Inference and Aggregation can be combined into a single
equation
with the number of rules.
The fuzzy logic controller (FLC) described in this paper is of
the Sugeno–Takagi type [17]. A conceptually different type of
FLC is the Mandami FLC [18], for which the consequent part
of the rules (the control actions) are also represented by fuzzy
sets. For Mandami’s approach the inference and aggregation act
on the fuzzy sets of the consequents, instead of single (“crisp”)
values, and the result of both steps is again a fuzzy set. A fifth
step (defuzzification) is needed to replace this fuzzy set by a
single (“crisp”) value (such as the center of area of the fuzzy
set) that acts as one of the controller outputs.
B. Power Controller
Fig. 6 presents a simplified block diagram of the power con-
troller. The first block converts the driver inputs from the brake
and accelerator pedals to a driver power command. The sig-
nals from the pedals are normalized to a value between zero
and one (zero: pedal is not pressed, one: pedal fully pressed).
The braking pedal signal is then subtracted from the acceler-
ating pedal signal, so that the driver input takes a value between
1 and 1.
The negative part of the driver input is send to a separate
brake controller that will compute the regenerative braking and
the friction braking power required to decelerate the vehicle.
The controller will always maximize the regenerative braking
power, but it can never exceed 65% of the total braking power
required, because regenerative braking can only be used for the
front wheels.
The positive part of the driver input is multiplied by the max-
imum available power at the current vehicle speed. This way all
power is available to the driver at all times.
The maximum available power is computed by adding the
maximum available ICE and EM power. The maximum avail-
able EM and ICE power depends on EM/ICE speed and EM/ICE
temperature, and is computed using a two–dimensional look-up
table with speed and temperature as inputs. However, for a given
vehicle speed, the ICE speed has one out of five possible values
(one for each gear number of the transmission). To obtain the
maximum ICE power, first the maximum ICE power levels for
those five speeds are computed, and then the maximum of these
values is selected.
Once the driver power command is computed, the fuzzy logic
controller (Fig. 6) computes the optimal generator power for the
EM in case it is used for charging the battery and a scaling factor
for the EM in case it is used as a motor. This scaling factor is
(close to) zero when the SOC of the battery is too low. In that
case the EM should not be used to drive the wheels, in order
to prevent battery damage. When the SOC is high enough, the
scaling factor equals one.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002 465

Fig. 8. Membership functions for state of charge.

Fig. 10. Operating points, efficiency map, and optimal curve of the internal
combustion engine for the fuzzy logic controller.

zero. Rule 8 prevents battery charging when the driver power

demand is high and the SOC is not too low. Charging in this sit-
uation will shift the ICE power level outside the optimum range
(30–50 kW). Finally, when the SOC is not too low (rule 9), the
scaling factor is one.
The third block in Fig. 6 computes the final values for the ICE
power and EM power , using , , and
the scaling factor (SF). normally is the driver power com-
mand added to the desired generator power
Fig. 9. Membership functions for electric motor (EM) speed.
, and is minus the desired generator power
. There are two exceptions.
The three inputs of the fuzzy logic controller are: driver power 1) When is smaller than the threshold
command , SOC and EM speed . The member- value (SF 6 kW), then kW, and
ship functions (MFs) for driver power command are presented .
in Fig. 7. Fuzzy set “normal” represents the power range for 2) When is larger than the max-
“normal” driving conditions, “high” represents the range only imum ICE power at current speed ,
used during high acceleration and high speed. The power range then and
for the transition between normal and high (30–50 kW) is the .
optimal range for the ICE. Finally, when is positive (EM used as motor), has
Fig. 8 presents the MFs for SOC. Fuzzy sets “too low” and to be multiplied by the scaling factor SF .
“too high” represent the ranges where the SOC should not be.
Fuzzy set “normal” represents the range where the SOC should C. Gear Shifting Control
be and “low” acts as a buffer between “normal” and “too low.”
The desired ICE power level is used by the gear shifting con-
Fig. 9 presents the MFs for EM speed. Fuzzy set “optimal”
troller to compute the optimum gear number of the automated
represents the optimal speed range. The MF drops relatively
manual transmission. First, the optimal speed-torque curve is
fast, since the efficiency also drops fast for speeds outside the
used to compute the optimal ICE speed and torque for the de-
optimal range (Fig. 3).
sired ICE power level. The optimal ICE speed is then divided
The rule base is presented in Table II. If the SOC is too high
by the vehicle speed to obtain the desired gear ratio. Finally, the
(rule 1) the desired generator power will be zero, to pre-
gear number closest to the desired gear ratio is chosen.
vent overcharging the battery. If the SOC is normal (rules 2 and
3), the battery will only be charged when both the EM speed
is optimal and the driver power is normal. If the SOC drops to V. SIMULATION RESULTS
low, the battery will be charged at a higher power level. This The power controller has been implemented and simulated
will result in a relatively fast return of the SOC to normal. If with PSAT using the driving cycles described in the SAE J1711
the SOC drops to too low (rules 6 and 7), the SOC has to be in- standard.
creased as fast as possible to prevent battery damage. To achieve Figs. 10–12 present the operating points of the ICE, EM, and
this, the desired generator power is the maximum available gen- battery plotted on the efficiency maps. The operating points in
erator power and the scaling factor is decreased from one to Fig. 10 are close to the optimal curve, which indicates that the
466
Fig. 11. Operating points, efficiency map, continuous and peak power curves
of the electric motor (EM) for the fuzzy logic controller.
Fig. 12. Operating points and efficiency map of the battery for the fuzzy logic
controller.
ICE has been operated close to optimal efficiency. The operating
points of the EM (Fig. 11) are mainly in the optimal speed range
of 320–430 rad/s. The operating points of the battery (Fig. 12)
are at a relatively high SOC (between 0.77 and the maximum
0.9), and the power level is relatively low, both resulting in high
efficiency.
These results have been compared with the results for the de-
fault controller in PSAT. This controller only optimizes the ICE
efficiency, and does not optimize EM, battery or transmission
efficiency. It optimizes the ICE efficiency by adjusting both the
ICE speed (using the transmission gear ratio) and torque to make
the operating point as close as possible to the optimal curve.
For the default controller the efficiency of all components is
lower, except for the ICE efficiency. The default controller is
more effective in the optimization of the ICE, because there is
no tradeoff between the ICE efficiency and the efficiency of the
other components of the PHV [unlike the fuzzy logic controller
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002
Fig. 13. Operating points, efficiency map, and optimal curve of the ICE for
the default PSAT controller.
Fig. 14. Operating points, efficiency map, continuous and peak power curves
of the EM for the default controller.
(FLC)]. Therefore, for the default controller the operating points
of the ICE (Fig. 13) are closer to the optimal curve than for the
FLC (see Fig. 10).
However, the efficiency of the other components is better for
the FLC than for the default controller, and therefore the overall
efficiency is better for the FLC. Figs. 14 and 15 present the op-
erating points of the EM, and battery for the default controller.
The operating points of the EM are much more spread out over
the map, and are not particularly in the optimal speed range of
320–430 rad/s (compare to Fig. 11), which explains the lower
EM efficiency compared to the FLC. The operating points of the
battery are in the desired SOC range, but the average charging
and discharging power is higher (compare to Fig. 12), thus de-
creasing the battery efficiency.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002
Fig. 15. Operating points and efficiency map of the battery for the default
controller.
TABLE III
NORMALIZED LOSSES FOR THE DEFAULT CONTROLLER
AND THE FLC FOR THE URBAN CYCLE
TABLE IV
NORMALIZED LOSSES FOR THE DEFAULT CONTROLLER
AND THE FLC FOR THE HIGHWAY CYCLE
To be able to compare the efficiency of the default controller
and the FLC, the battery energy at the beginning and the end of
each cycle has to be the same. This is done by using an algorithm
that iteratively adapts the initial SOC until the SOC at the end of
the cycle equals the initial SOC. This is the basis for the charge
sustaining part of the SAE J1711 test procedure.
Table s III and IV present the normalized losses for the urban
and highway cycle, respectively. The losses are normalized with
respect to the total loss for the default controller (which is 100%
467
in both tables). For the FLC the losses in the ICE, EM, battery,
and drivetrain are smaller for both the urban and highway cycles.
The vehicle losses, energy for accessories and friction braking
are approximately the same, because both controllers are simu-
lated with the same vehicle and the same driving cycles.
Although the ICE efficiency is higher for the default con-
troller, the ICE losses for the FLC are smaller. This is because
the ICE produces less energy for the FLC. Less energy is needed
to complete the cycle, since the efficiency of the other compo-
nents is higher than for the default controller.
The overall improvement of the FLC for an urban cycle equals
6.8% and for a highway cycle 9.6%.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, a fuzzy logic-based power controller for PHVs
has been presented. This power controller optimizes the energy
flow between the main components of the PHV and optimizes
the energy generation and conversion in the individual compo-
nents (ICE, EM, transmission, and battery). The efficiency maps
of the components have been used to design the controller.
The power controller first converts the accelerator and brake
pedal inputs of the driver to a driver power command. The driver
power command, state of charge of the battery, and electric
motor speed are then used by a fuzzy logic controller to com-
pute the optimal generator power and a scaling factor for the
electric motor. The driver power command, optimal generator
power, and scaling factor are used to compute the optimal ICE
and EM power. Furthermore, the efficiency of the ICE for a
given power level is optimized using an optimal speed-torque
curve, and using gear shifting to control the speed of the ICE.
The power controller ensures that the driver inputs (from
brake and accelerator pedals) are satisfied consistently, the
battery is sufficiently charged at all times, and the fuel economy
of the PHV is optimized.
Simulation results, using the driving cycles described in the
SAE J1711 standard, show potential improvement by using
fuzzy logic, over other strategies that optimize only the ICE
efficiency.
In future research, the robustness of the fuzzy logic controller
will be investigated in more detail. The control structure will be
used to design a controller that minimizes the emissions and
maximizes the fuel economy. Adaptive/learning elements will
be added to the controller, to enable on-line controller optimiza-
tion. Combined component size and controller optimization will
also be studied.
REFERENCES
[1] N. Hattori, S. Aoyama, S. Kitada, I. Matsuo, and K. Hamai, “Config-
uration and operation of a newly developed parallel hybrid propulsion
system,” in Proc. Global Powertrain Congr., Detroit, MI, Oct. 6–8, 1998.
[2] B. K. Powell, K. E. Bailey, and S. R. Cikanek, “Dynamic modeling and
control of hybrid electric vehicle powertrain systems,” IEEE Contr. Syst.
Mag., pp. 17–33, Oct. 1998.
[3] J. M. Miller, A. R. Gale, and A. Sankaran, “Electric drive subsystem
for a low-storage requirement hybrid electric vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Syst., vol. 48, pp. 1788–1796, Nov. 1999.
[4] Z. Rahman, K. L. Butler, and M. Ehsani, “Designing parallel hybrid
electric vehicles using V-ELPS 2.01,” in Proc. Amer. Contr. Conf., San
Diego, CA, June 1999, pp. 2693–2697.
468 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CONTROL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 10, NO. 3, MAY 2002
[5] M. Ehsani, Y. Gao, and K. L. Butler, “Application of Electrically
Peaking Hybrid (ELPH) propulsion system to a full-size passenger car
with simulated design verification,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Syst., vol. 48, pp.
1779–1787, Nov. 1999.
[6] N. Jalil and N. Kheir, “Energy management studies for a new genera-
tion of vehicles (Milestone #5: Fuzzy logic for the series hybrid),” Tech.
Rep., Dept. Elect. Syst. Eng., School Eng. Comput. Sci., Oakland Univ.,
Rochester, MI, Mar. 1998.
[7] , “Energy management studies for a new generation of vehicles
(Milestone #6: Fuzzy logic for the parallel hybrid),” Tech. Rep., Dept.
Elect. Syst. Eng., School Eng. Comput. Sci., Oakland Univ., Rochester,
MI, Mar. 1998.
[8] B. M. Baumann, “Intelligent control strategies for hybrid vehicles using
neural networks and fuzzy logic,” Master’s thesis, Dept. Elect. Eng.,
Ohio State Univ., Columbus, 1997.
[9] H. Kono, “Fuzzy control for hybrid electric vehicles,” Master’s thesis,
Department of Electrical Engineering, The Ohio State University, 1998.
[10] S. T. McBroom, “Toolkit for tomorrow’s car,” in Technology Today:
Southwest Research Institute Publications, Spring 1997. [Online]. Avail-
able: www.swri.org.
View publication stats
[11] K. B. Wipke, M. R. Cuddy, and S. D. Burch, “ADVISOR 2.1:
User-friendly advanced powertrain simulation using a combined
backward/forward approach,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 48, pp.
1751–1761, Nov. 1999.
[12] L. Guzzella and A. Amstutz, “CAE tools for quasistatic modeling and
optimization of hybrid powertrains,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol, vol. 48,
pp. 1762–1770, Nov. 1999.
[13] U. Kaymak, R. Babuška, and H. R. van Nauta Lemke, “Fuzzy con-
trol—Theory and design,” J. A, vol. 36, no. 3, 1995.
[14] K. Hirota, Ed., Industrial Applications of Fuzzy Technology. Tokyo,
Japan: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[15] D. Driankov, H. Hellendoorn, and M. Reinfrank, An Introduction to
Fuzzy Control. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1993.
[16] C. C. Lee, “Fuzzy logic in control systems,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man,
Cybern., vol. 20, pp. 404–435, 1990.
[17] T. Takagi and M. Sugeno, “Fuzzy identification of systems and its appli-
cation to modeling and control,” IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., vol.
15, pp. 116–132, 1985.
[18] E. H. Mandami, “Applications of fuzzy algorithms for control of simple
dynamic plant,” Proc. IEE, pp. 1585–1588, 1974.