Article

Implementation of an Energy Management Strategy

with Drivability Constraints for a Dual-Motor
Electric Vehicle
Haiqing Wang and Hanfei Wu *
FEIT of University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia; Hq.wang.zoey@gmail.com
* Correspondence: Hanfei.Wu@student.uts.edu.au




Received: 18 April 2019; Accepted: 20 May 2019; Published: 23 May 2019


Abstract: This paper presents a real-time energy management strategy to distribute the power demand
between two independent motors properly. Based on the characteristics of the novel transmission
system, an enumeration-based searching approach is used to hunt for the optimal working points for
both motors to maximize the overall efficiency. Like many energy management strategies, approaches
that focus on reducing energy consumption can result in frequent gearshifts. To improve drivability
and make a balance between energy consumption and gearshifts, a cost function is designed. To verify
the effectiveness of the proposed method, a mathematical model is built, and the simulation results
demonstrate the achieved improvements.

Keywords: electric vehicles; dual-motor system; energy management strategy; frequent gearshifts

1. Introduction
As the energy resource shortage is becoming increasingly serious, the vehicle industry is facing an
unprecedented challenge [1–3]. Due to the rising price of traditional energy sources such as fossil fuels
and the penalty agreement on green gas emissions globally, the traditional transportation industry is
transferring to electrical transport options which are more efficient in terms of energy usage and more
environmentally friendly. As a consequence, researchers and manufacturers are paying more attention
to hybrid electric vehicles (EVs) and pure electric vehicles which are more cost-effective, make cleaner
usage of energy, and give better driving comfort [4]. However, the low energy-storage capacity of the
batteries limits the driving distance significantly, leading to the unsuccessful popularization of EVs in
the commercial market [5]. Therefore, measures should be taken in every possible way to optimize the
usage of stored energy [6,7].
Transmission is fundamental to realize a high-efficiency electric powertrain with little compromise in
driving ability [8,9]. Up to now, research has tended to focus on the application of multispeed transmission
rather than single-speed transmission. Extensive research has shown that the motor size can be reduced by
applying multispeed transmissions to electric vehicle platforms, as well as achieving the desired power by
providing a wider speed range of usable torque and reducing energy consumption by gear-shifting [10].
In all current kinds of multispeed transmission, AMT stands out as a proper choice of electric vehicle
transmission due to the advantages of the technique’s maturity, reliable running performance, and good
efficiency [11]. Besides, it also has a low manufacturing cost and compact size [12]. The disadvantages
of this transmission system, such as vibration and torque interruption while shifting, cannot be ignored,
as well as the clutch failures resulting from significant wear [13,14].
However, these drawbacks can be improved in electric vehicles because electric motors have a
controllable actuating speed, which makes it possible to run a clutchless transmission system in electric
vehicles to minimize the additional losses [11,15,16]. Moreover, to eliminate the torque interruption of
AMT, a dual-motor platform is used to fill the torque hole during shifting with another motor [17–19].

World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28; doi:10.3390/wevj10020028 www.mdpi.com/journal/wevj

World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 2 of 14

The power distribution is important in energy management besides the structure of the
powertrain [20]. Related research areas are developing fast in diverse ways. The rule-based control
strategy is the most common and simplest control method. Its advantages are the high computing speed,
simple architecture, and good control performance, such as shown in [21,22]. The fuzzy logic control
strategy is good at balancing the efficiency of whole powertrain components, since this method can
allow the possibility of imprecise measurements and uncertain changes between components [23,24].
A global optimization-based control strategy such as stochastic dynamic programming (SDP) uses
an improved computing method, making the best decisions according to the results, which come
from the former problems into the next situation until the end, such as in [25,26]. Model predictive
control (MPC) incorporates the future driving load in the predictive model to manage the upcoming
driving status [27]. The main weakness of these theories is that the optimal solution depends highly on
pre-existing knowledge, so it is difficult to apply to real driving conditions that are full of uncertainty.
The equivalent consumption minimization strategy (ECMS) transfers the electric energy consumption
to fuel consumption by using an equivalent factor [28]. However, it cannot be used in the dual-motor
input structure since the battery supporting both motors is working as the only power source without
power transfer problems. To address this issue, a specific energy management strategy is designed
using an enumeration algorithm.
It is worth noting that most studies in the energy management field have only focused on the
optimization of energy consumption, while failing to address the drivability attributes. Excessive gear
shifting [29] is one of the most typical problems encountered by energy management strategies,
as achieving the best efficiency inherently requires frequent gear changes. To solve this problem,
a specific shifting stability control approach is proposed. It employs a bump function to both control
the minimum shifting frequency and reveal the relationship between the shifting frequency and the
shifting cost penalty. As there are two parameters, namely the bump amplitude and bump duration in
determining the cost function, an advanced optimization strategy which can solve the two-objective
problem is adopted [30]. The proposed particle swarm optimization (PSO) multiobjective optimization
method could generate a pair of desirable parameters according to specific driving conditions, thus
achieving both low gear shift numbers and low energy consumption.
This paper proposes a real-time energy management strategy to improve the overall efficiency of
a dual-motor transmission system. Since energy-oriented strategies often lead to frequent gearshifts,
an optimization method based on PSO is adopted to filter undesirable gearshifts. The rest paper is
organized as follows. In Section 2, the powertrain mathematical modeling and parameter selection of
electric motors are introduced. Section 3 presents the designed energy management strategy and cost
function for shift stability. Section 4 shows the simulation results of driving cycles. Conclusions are
drawn in Section 5.

2. Powertrain Modeling
To maximize energy efficiency while meeting drivability requirements, clutchless dual-motor
transmission is utilized. The structure of the transmission system is shown in Figure 1.
In the dual-input clutchless transmission system, EM1 and EM2 denote the first motor and the
second motor respectively, and Dif. represents the differential mechanism. The red arrows illustrate the
power flow provided by EM1 and the green arrows show the power flow by EM2. From the Figure 1,
the first motor is connected to a multispeed transmission. Since electric motors are speed-controllable,
gearshifts can be achieved without clutches. The combination of motor speed control and synchronizer
actuation make it a cost-effective and efficient way to achieve the merits of multispeed transmission.
In order to realize power-on shifting, the second motor helps compensate the torque hole during
gearshifts. As the second motor drives the wheels using a fixed reduction ratio, the first and second
motors can supplement each other to provide power in some driving conditions.
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 3 of 14
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

Figure 1. Dual-motor transmission.

Figure 1. Dual-motor transmission.
The battery model based on the DC circuit is used for both motors in this study. This allows for
directInmodel control through
the dual-input the transmission
clutchless input voltage,system,
and theEM1
complexity
and EM2inherent in power
denote the electronics
first motor is
and the
lost.
secondThemotor
differential equation
respectively, is Dif.
and calculated as: the differential mechanism. The red arrows illustrate
represents
the power flow provided by EM1 and the. green. arrows show the power flow by EM2. From the
= Ke θ − RItransmission.
Figure 1, the first motor is connected to aLImultispeed +V Since electric motors are speed-(1)
controllable, gearshifts can be achieved without clutches. The combination of motor speed control
where L denotes the inductance, I denotes the line current, Ke is the electromagnetic field constant, R is
and synchronizer actuation make it a cost-effective and efficient way to achieve the merits of
the line resistance, and V is the voltage. The motor torque is calculated as:
multispeed transmission. In order to realize power-on shifting, the second motor helps compensate
the torque hole during gearshifts. As the second motor drives the wheels using a fixed reduction ratio,
T = KT I (2)
the first and second motors can supplement each other to provide power in some driving conditions.
whereTheKT battery modelcoefficient.
is the torque based on the
TheDC circuit
chief is used
question thatfor bothfirst
must motors in this study.
be considered This
about theallows
motorsfor
is
direct of
which model control
the two through
motors the input
is the primary voltage,
drive motorand andthe
howcomplexity
much power inherent in power
is required. electronics
Obviously, is
the use
lost. The differential equation is calculated as:
of multiple speed ratios is beneficial to improving the driving efficiency of the vehicle under a wider
speed range, and thus EM1 should be considered the primary driving motor. The motor driving
𝐿𝐼 = 𝐾 𝜃 − 𝑅𝐼 + 𝑉 (1)
the fixed ratio, hereafter referred to as EM2, is required to provide additional driving power during
certain
where periods
𝐿 denotes of operation and provide
the inductance, I denoteshighthetorque outputs 𝐾
line current, for is
shifting. If a gear shift field
the electromagnetic is undertaken
constant,
whilst EM1 is driving the wheels at its peak output torque in any
𝑅 is the line resistance, and 𝑉 is the voltage. The motor torque is calculated as: given speed, then the EM2 torque
requirements can be defined and the peak power requirements of the motor established. The peak
torque for EM2 that should be delivered 𝑇 =during
𝐾 𝐼 a generic up or down shift is defined, excluding (2) any
losses in the transmission, as:
where 𝐾 is the torque coefficient. The chief question i i2 that must first be considered about the motors
T2 = 1 T1 (3)
is which of the two motors is the primary drive motor i3 and how much power is required. Obviously,
the usei1ofismultiple
where the gear speed ratios
ratio for is beneficial
multispeed to improving
transmission, i2 isthe
thedriving
counterefficiency
shaft gearofratio,
the vehicle
and i3 under
is the
a wider speed range, and thus EM1 should be considered the primary driving
fixed reduction gear ratio for the second motor, EM2. The speed range required for this torque deliverymotor. The motor
driving
is defined theas:fixed ratio, hereafter referred to as EM2, is required to provide additional driving power
during certain periods of operation and provide i3 torque outputs for shifting. If a gear shift is
N2 = high N1 (4)
undertaken whilst EM1 is driving the wheels at itsi1 ipeak 2 output torque in any given speed, then the
EM2Obviously,
torque requirements can be defined
these two equations and the
demonstrate thatpeak powerand
the speed requirements of the motor
torque requirements for any established.
particular
The peak
gear torque for
shift produce EM2 that
identical peakshould be delivered to
power requirements during a generic
the primary up or
driving downThis
motor. shift is defined,
is necessarily
excluding any
considered losses in the
as overdesign transmission,
of the motor as thisas: power would only be required for the one to two seconds
required for the gear shift. A balance must therefore
𝑖 𝑖 be achieved through a review of the shifting patterns
𝑇 = 𝑇
of the vehicle under a typical driving cycle. 𝑖
The motor efficiency maps are shown in Figure 2. (3)
where 𝑖 is the gear ratio for multispeed transmission, 𝑖 is the counter shaft gear ratio, and 𝑖 is
the fixed reduction gear ratio for the second motor, EM2. The speed range required for this torque
delivery is defined as:
𝑖
𝑁 = 𝑁 (4)
𝑖 𝑖
particular gear shift produce identical peak power requirements to the primary driving motor. This
is necessarily considered as overdesign of the motor as this power would only be required for the
one to two seconds required for the gear shift. A balance must therefore be achieved through a review
of the shifting patterns of the vehicle under a typical driving cycle. The motor efficiency maps are
World Electric
shown Vehicle 2.
in Figure Journal 2019, 10, 28 4 of 14

(a)
70 Maximum torque
60
50

Torque (Nm)
0.94
40 0.93
0.92
30 0.91
0.9
20 0.875
0.85
0.8
10 0.7
0.75
0.65
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000
Speed (rpm)
(b)
150
0.7
0.75
0.65 Maximum torque
0.8
0.85
Torque (Nm)

100 0.875
0.9
0.91
0.92
50 0.93
0.94

0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Speed (rpm)

Figure 2. Motor efficiency maps.

Figure 2. Motor efficiency maps.
The selected gear ratios are shown in Table 1.
The selected gear ratios are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Gear ratios.
Table 1. Gear ratios.
Symbol Variable Name Value
Symbol
ic1
Variable name
Counter gear for motor 1
Value4.62
𝑖 Counter gear for motor 1 4.62
ic2𝑖 Counter
Counter gear
gear forformotor
motor2 2 2.16 2.16
I g1𝐼 Gear
Gear1 1for
formotor
motor1 1 3.46 3.46
i g2𝑖 Gear
Gear2 2for
formotor
motor1 1 2.08 2.08
i g3
𝑖 Gear 3 for motor
Gear 3 for motor 1 1 1.32 1.32
𝑖 Reduction gear for motor 2 3.46
i2 Reduction gear for motor 2 3.46

These gear ratios are designed to cover most driving conditions. The first and second gear ratio
of AMTThese gear
is set to ratios are designed
be relatively high totomeet
coverthe
most driving conditions.
requirements The firstconditions,
of urban driving and secondwhere
gear ratio
the
vehicle
of AMTspeed
is setistolow and stopshigh
be relatively are frequent. By requirements
to meet the doing this, EM1 can work
of urban in a more
driving efficient
conditions, area the
where by
adjusting torque
vehicle speed and and
is low speed through
stops a large gear
are frequent. ratio. this,
By doing Then, the can
EM1 third gearinratio
work of AMT,
a more as well
efficient area as
by
adjusting torque and speed through a large gear ratio. Then, the third gear ratio of AMT, as well as the
fixed gear ratio of EM2, is designed to meet the requirements of mid-to-high-speed driving conditions,
especially for traveling and highway cruising.
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 5 of 14

3. Energy Management Strategy

In order to maximize energy efficiency while meeting dynamic requirements, the energy
management strategy plays an important role to distribute the power flow between two motors.
Two motors should work in a supplementary way to achieve a desirable efficiency.
The output power is calculated as follows:
. .
θ θ  . .
= T1 ∗ 1 + T2 ∗ 2 T1 ∗ θ1 > 0&T2 ∗ θ2 > 0

Pout (5)
η1 η2

where η1 is the efficiency of the first motor and η2 is that of the second motor.
To optimize energy usage, both motors can work as a generator to charge the battery. The working
conditions of regenerative braking is also included as well. Accordingly, the reusable power
consumption is calculated as follows:
. .
θ θ2  . .
Pin = T1 ∗ 1 + T2 ∗

T1 ∗ θ1 < 0&T2 ∗ θ2 < 0 (6)
η1 η2

The overall power consumption is calculated as below:

P = Poutput + Pinput (7)

In this equation, the variables are T1 , T2 , θ1 , and θ2 . However, they are not independent of
each other.
As for the motor torques, the relation between two motors’ can be described as
 
Jeq3 ∗ αFinal + Tv − i1 ∗ T1 − Jeq1 ∗ α1
T2 = + Jeq2 ∗ α2 (8)
i2

where Jeq1 is the equivalent inertia for the first motor driveline, Jeq2 is that for the second motor driveline,
and Jeq3 is that for the vehicle body. The αFinal , α1 , and α2 are the demanded angular acceleration for
the first motor, second motor, and final shaft, respectively. Once one of the motor torque values is
decided upon, the other can be assigned. In this study, T1 is used as the independent variable.
As to the speed, once the driving speed is given, the speeds of two motors are decided by the
corresponding gear ratio. The equation can be expressed as below:

. v . v
θEM1 = ·i1 , θEM2 = ·i2 (9)
Rw Rw

Therefore, the independent variable in this system is the torque of EM1 and the corresponding
gear ratio. As a result, the objective function is as below:

min·P(T1 , i) (10)

subject to
. . .
− θ1,max ≤ −θ1 ≤ θ1,max (11)
.  . 
− T1,max θ1 ≤ T1,max ≤ T1,max θ1 (12)
. . .
− θ2,max ≤ −θ2 ≤ θ2,max (13)
.  . 
− T2,max θ2 ≤ T2,max ≤ T2,max θ2 (14)

Since the battery is the only power source, there are no energy transfer issues. The enumerating
method can reduce the computational burden while being as close as possible to the optimal solutions.
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 6 of 14

In the design space, the independent variable TM1 is discretized into a regular dense grid points of 2 Nm
intervals. At these discretized points, the objective function value P is calculated under constraints.
The optimal points with minimum objective values will be chosen as the final results after excluding
the unfeasible points. Figure 3 shows the plots of the objective function; from this, it can be seen that
the trajectory of the optimal solutions would be adjusted under different driving conditions.

(a)
6000

V= 10 km/h, a=0 m/s2 , gear=2

Power (w)

4000

working point
2000

0
−80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
Motor 1 torque (Nm)
104 (b)
1.5

V= 10 km/h, a=1 m/s2 , gear=1

Power (w)

working point

0.5
−60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80
Motor 1 torque (Nm)

Figure 3. Objective
Figure 3. Objective function
function value
value of
of different
differentdriving
drivingconditions.
conditions.
4. Shifting Stability
4. Shifting Stability
The energy management strategy can provide optimal power distribution between two motors,
but itThe
canenergy management
also lead to frequentstrategy can provide
gear-shifting. optimal
To avoid thispower distribution
problem, between
a cost function is two
usedmotors,
in the
but it can also lead to frequent gear-shifting. To avoid this problem, a cost function
proposed energy management strategy to improve shift stability. It is defined as follows: is used in the
proposed energy management strategy to improve shift stability. It is defined as follows:
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW − 1 7 of 14
fcost = A ∗ e 1−x2
(15) (15)
𝑓 = 𝐴∗𝑒
The bump function is introduced as a penalty to solve the problem of frequent gearshifts. As
The bump function is introduced as a penalty to solve the problem of frequent gearshifts. As shown
shown in Figure 4, the penalty will start from a large value in the early period and then decrease
in
smoothly4,but
Figure therapidly
penaltytowill start from a large value in the early period and then decrease smoothly but
zero.
rapidly to zero.
y

Figure
Figure 4. Feature of
4. Feature of the
the bump
bump function.
function.

Figure 5 shows the schematic diagram of the designed cost function, where the solid lines denote
the power consumption for each gear. Since the power consumptions of different gear states are not
the same, the optimal gear is decided by searching for the gear ratio with minimum power
consumption. Based on this, the gear will change with the lowest curves to save energy, which results
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 7 of 14
Figure 4. Feature of the bump function.

Figure
Figure55shows
showsthe theschematic
schematicdiagram
diagramof ofthe
the designed
designedcost
costfunction,
function,where
wherethe thesolid
solidlines
lines denote
denote
the power consumption for each gear. Since the power consumptions of different
the power consumption for each gear. Since the power consumptions of different gear states gear states are not
are the
not
same, the optimal gear is decided by searching for the gear ratio with minimum
the same, the optimal gear is decided by searching for the gear ratio with minimum power power consumption.
Based on this, Based
consumption. the gearon will
this, change
the gearwith the lowest
will change withcurves to save
the lowest energy,
curves which
to save results
energy, whichin aresults
short
shifting duration. With the designed cost function, every time gear-shifting is completed,
in a short shifting duration. With the designed cost function, every time gear-shifting is completed, the power
consumption of the current
the power consumption gear
of the will keep
current gearits value,
will keepbut additional
its value, penalty values
but additional willvalues
penalty be imposed
will be
on the rest of the gears. As shown in Figure 5, the working gear changes
imposed on the rest of the gears. As shown in Figure 5, the working gear changes from the from the blue line to line
blue the
green
to theline in the
green linebeginning, so that asopenalty
in the beginning, will be imposed
that a penalty on the nonworking
will be imposed gear duegear
on the nonworking to the cost
due to
function. Thus, the shifting duration last for a longer period when searching for
the cost function. Thus, the shifting duration last for a longer period when searching for minimum minimum power
consumption and frequency
power consumption of gearshifts
and frequency is significantly
of gearshifts reduced.reduced.
is significantly

Figure 5. The schematic diagram of the designed cost function.

Figure 5. The schematic diagram of the designed cost function.

Considering the shifting stability, the objective function to be minimized in the energy management
Considering the shifting stability, the objective function to be minimized in the energy
strategy will be defined as
management strategy will be defined as
Psub_opt = P + fcost (16)
𝑃 _directed
However, since the gear-shifting = 𝑃 +by
𝑓 the energy management strategy aims at (16)
achieving
high energy efficiency, the reduction of gear changes will lead to an increase in power consumption.
However, since the gear-shifting directed by the energy management strategy aims at achieving
To filter out unnecessary shifts while minimizing the extra energy consumption, the coefficients
high energy efficiency, the reduction of gear changes will lead to an increase in power consumption.
of the cost function is the key. In order to make a balance between energy consumption and
To filter out unnecessary shifts while minimizing the extra energy consumption, the coefficients of
gearshifts, the optimization approach based on particle swarm optimization is used to optimize the
the cost function is the key. In order to make a balance between energy consumption and gearshifts,
corresponding coefficients.
the optimization approach based on particle swarm optimization is used to optimize the
The PSO algorithm is a heuristic optimization algorithm that simulates the random distribution
corresponding coefficients.
and instinct behavior of creatures, which are called particles. Particles interact with each other and
move as a group, affecting the overall speed and location of all groups. The key element of PSO is the
speed and position of swarms, which are respectively defined as follows:
   
k +1 k
Vid = ωVid + c1 r1 Pkid − Xid
k
+ c2 r2 Pkid − Xid
k
(17)

k +1 k k +1
Xid = Xid + Vid (18)

where ω is the inertial weight, k is the current number of iterations, Vid is the swarm speed, Xi is the
fitness value, c1 and c2 are the non-negative constants called the acceleration factors, and r1 and r2 are
random numbers between 0 and 1. The control configuration is shown in Figure 6.
 𝑋 =𝑋 +𝑉 (18)

where ω is the inertial weight, k is the current number of iterations, 𝑉 is the swarm speed, 𝑋 is the
fitness value,
World Electric 𝑐 Journal
Vehicle 𝑐 10,
and 2019, are28the non-negative constants called the acceleration factors, and 𝑟8 ofand
14
𝑟 are random numbers between 0 and 1. The control configuration is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Multiobjective optimization control configuration.

In the PSO multiobjective optimization, the functions to be minimized are as follows:

Figure 6. Multiobjective optimization control configuration.
− 1
f1 = minP(T1 , i) + A ∗ e 1−x2 (19)
In the PSO multiobjective optimization, theX
functions to be minimized are as follows:
f2 = min Gearshi f ts (20)
𝑓 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑃(𝑇 , 𝑖) + 𝐴 ∗ 𝑒 (19)
Because f1 and f2 are not on the same order of magnitude, the values are normalized as below:

𝑓 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐺𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑠 0 f1k (20)

f1k = (21)
f1
Because 𝑓 and 𝑓 are not on the same order of magnitude, the values are normalized as below:
𝑓 0 f2k
𝑓 = f2k = (21) (22)
𝑓 f2
𝑓
where f1k denotes the value 𝑓 for
= the kth generation and f1 denotes the average value.
𝑓 (22)
It worth noting that the PSO optimization is used to determine the coefficients of the cost function
offline. The optimization results will be used in the online power-sharing strategy to help calculate the
denotes the value for the kth generation and 𝑓 ̅ denotes the average value.
where 𝑓instantaneously.
penalty
It worth noting that the PSO optimization is used to determine the coefficients of the cost
function offline.Evaluation
5. Performance The optimization results will be used in the online power-sharing strategy to help
calculate the penalty instantaneously.
5.1. Power-Sharing Strategy Evaluation
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed power-sharing strategy, the LA92 driving
cycle is adopted. The total distance of the LA92 cycle is 15.8 km, traveled in 1435 s. It is a representation
of urban driving patterns for light-duty vehicles.
For comparison, different fixed power distribution strategies are investigated. Figure 7 shows the
energy consumption comparisons.
5.1. Power-Sharing Strategy Evaluation
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed power-sharing strategy, the LA92
driving cycle is adopted. The total distance of the LA92 cycle is 15.8 km, traveled in 1435 s. It is a
representation
World ofJournal
Electric Vehicle urban driving
2019, 10, 28 patterns for light-duty vehicles. 9 of 14
For comparison, different fixed power distribution strategies are investigated. Figure 7 shows
the energy
(a)

80 Speed reference
Vehicle speed

60

40

Speed (km/h)
20

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (s)

Figure 7. Energy consumption comparisons.

Figure 7a shows that there are many starts and stops along the LA92 driving cycle, which are
shown in the form of speed peaks. Figure 7. Energy
From consumption
the speed comparisons.
file, the proposed energy management strategy can
direct the vehicle to follow the target speed accurately. In Figure 7b, fixed distribution strategies are used
Figure
to make 7a shows that
a comparison. The there are many
trajectory starts
of energy and stops along
consumptions is notthe LA92 driving
monotonically cycle, which
increasing are
because
shown
the in the
motors canform
workof asspeed peaks.inFrom
a generator the speed
braking. file, the
The results proposed
show energy management
that the designed strategy
energy management
can direct the vehicle to follow the target speed accurately. In Figure 7b, fixed distribution
strategy achieves the highest efficiency, where two motors work easily in their high-efficiency region strategies
are used
with properto power
make distribution.
a comparison. TwoThe trajectory
motors of energy
can work consumptionsway
in a supplementary is not monotonically
to provide power.
increasing because the motors can work as a generator in braking. The results show that
The fixed distributions limit the possibility of optimal solutions. Two motors can hardly achieve their the designed
energy management
high-efficiency region strategy achieves
simultaneously duethetohighest efficiency,
distribution whereThe
constraints. twodetailed
motorsenergy
work easily in their
consumption
high-efficiency
are shown in Tableregion
2. with proper power distribution. Two motors can work in a supplementary
way to provide power. The fixed distributions limit the possibility of optimal solutions. Two motors
can hardly achieve their high-efficiency region
Table 2. Energy simultaneously
consumption due to distribution constraints. The
comparison.
detailed energy consumption are shown in Table 2.
LA92 Energy Consumption Extra EC
ProposedTable
strategy 0.8418
2. Energy consumption kWh
comparison.
Motor 1 (100%); Motor 2 (0%) 0.8726 kWh 3.66%
LA92 Energy Consumption Extra EC
Motor 1 (75%);
Proposed Motor 2 (25%)
strategy 0.8761 kWhkWh
0.8418 4.07%
Motor 1Motor
(100%); Motor
1 (50%); 2 (0%)
Motor 2 (50%) 0.8726
0.8847 kWhkWh 5.10% 3.66%
Motor 1 (0%); Motor 2 (100%) 0.9252 kWh 9.91%

It is worth noting that when the first motor has the higher distribution weight, it confers higher
efficiency. As shown in Table 2, the distribution of 100% of work done by motor 1 and 0% by motor
2 stands out in the fixed distribution strategies, followed by that with 75% of work done by motor
1 and 25% by motor 2, then that with 50% of work done by motor 1 and 50% by motor 2, and finally,
 Motor 1 (50%); Motor 2 (50%) 0.8847 kWh 5.10%
Motor 1 (0%); Motor 2 (100%) 0.9252 kWh 9.91%

It is worth noting that when the first motor has the higher distribution weight, it confers higher
efficiency. As shown in Table 2, the distribution of 100% of work done by motor 1 and 0% by motor
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 10 of 14
2 stands out in the fixed distribution strategies, followed by that with 75% of work done by motor 1
and 25% by motor 2, then that with 50% of work done by motor 1 and 50% by motor 2, and finally,
that in
that in which
which onlyonly motor
motor 22 is is working.
working. This
This isis because
because of
of the
the advantage
advantage ofof multispeed
multispeed transmission.
transmission.
Sincemotor
Since motor1 1is is connected
connected to atomultispeed
a multispeed transmission,
transmission, the energy
the energy efficiency
efficiency can be improved
can be improved through
through
gear gear changes,
changes, especially especially
in complex in complex and changeable
and changeable driving driving conditions.
conditions. On the On thehand,
other other when
hand,
itwhen
comesit comes
to stableto stable
drivingdriving conditions
conditions such assuch as cruising,
cruising, the energy
the energy efficiency
efficiency will will increase
increase withwith
the
the weight
weight of the ofsecond
the secondmotor.motor.
This This is because
is because the second
the second motormotor
worksworks
betterbetter in low-torque
in low-torque high-
high-speed
speed conditions.
conditions. So, for So, for different
different drivingdriving situations,
situations, the designed
the designed power-sharing
power-sharing strategystrategy can always
can always find a
find a decent
decent power power distribution
distribution ratio toratio to achieve
achieve a higher a higher
energyenergy efficiency.
efficiency.

5.2. Drivability
5.2. Drivability Evaluation
Evaluation
Figure 88 shows
Figure shows the
the corresponding
corresponding shifting
shifting performance
performance and
and motor
motor speeds.
speeds. The
The upper
upper figure
figure
represents
represents the gear shift numbers while the lower figure shows the motor rotational speed along with
gear shift numbers while the lower figure shows the motor rotational speed along
time.time.
with
3.46

2.08
Gear ratio

1.32

10000
1st motor

2nd motor
(rpm)

5000

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (s)

Figure 8. Gear shifting with the power-sharing strategy.

Figure 8. Gear shifting with the power-sharing strategy.
From Figure 8, it can be seen in the upper figure that in order to achieve high overall efficiency,
From
the gear Figure
kept 8, it can
changing be seen inthe
throughout thewhole
upperprocess,
figure that in order
which to achieve
introduced high
energy overall
losses andefficiency,
reduced
the gear kept changing throughout the whole process, which introduced
comfort of the driving experience. In the lower figure of Figure 8, the motor speed figure showsenergy losses and reduced
that
comfort
both of the
motors helpdriving experience.
to provide In the
power with thelower figurestrategy.
proposed of Figure 8, the
When themotor
vehiclespeed
speedfigure
is lowershows
than
that
40 both the
km/h, motors
first help
motor to works
provide aspower
the mainwithpower
the proposed
source. strategy.
The motor When
speedtheisvehicle
high tospeed
achieveis lower
high
than 40 km/h, the first motor works as the main power source. The motor
efficiency, according to the motor efficiency map. Besides, the multispeed transmission can providespeed is high to achieve
high launching
high efficiency,torque
accordingwithoutto the motor efficiency
compromising map. atBesides,
efficiency the multispeed
high operating speed. Whentransmission
the vehiclecan
provide high launching torque without compromising efficiency at high operating
speed is beyond 40 km/h, the second motor will help to provide power with low torque and high speed speed. When the
vehicle
to speedthe
guarantee is beyond
optimal 40 km/h, the second motor will help to provide power with low torque and
efficiency.
highThespeed
motor speed figure optimal
to guarantee the efficiency.
demonstrates that motor 1 mainly works when the vehicle speed is low
The motor speed figure demonstrates
while the motor speed is high to achieve high that motor 1 mainly
efficiency. works when
In low-speed the vehicle
conditions, speed
motor is low
1 works
while thewith
together motorAMT speed is highhigh
to achieve to achieve highbecause
efficiency, efficiency.
AMT In provides
low-speed conditions,
high motor without
starting torque 1 works
together with AMT to achieve high efficiency, because AMT provides
compromising the efficiency at high operating speed. When the vehicle speed is above 40 km/h, high starting torque without
motor
compromising the efficiency at high operating speed. When the
2 will take over to provide power due to the design of the fixed gear ratio for motor 2. vehicle speed is above 40 km/h,
motor 2 will take over to provide power due to the design of the fixed gear ratio
To alleviate the frequent gearshifts, the optimized cost function is adopted, and the improved for motor 2.
To performance
shifting alleviate the frequent
is shown gearshifts,
in Figure 9.the optimized cost function is adopted, and the improved
shifting performance is shown in Figure 9.
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2018, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 11 of 14

3.46

2.08

Gear
1.32

1000

1st motor
(rpm) 2nd motor

500

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time (s)

Figure 9. Gear shifting with the modified power-sharing strategy.

Figure 9. Gear shifting with the modified power-sharing strategy.
Compared to Figure 8, the gear-shifting frequency has been greatly reduced. The motor speed file
showsCompared to Figure 8,ofthe
that the performance thegear-shifting frequency
first motor works has been
in a steady and greatly
continuousreduced. The less
way with motor speed
frequent
file shows that the performance of the first motor works in a steady and continuous way with less
starting and stopping.
frequent
Tablestarting and stopping.
3 explicates the drivability improvement and compares the suboptimality of energy
Table 3 explicates
consumption. the drivability
The energy-oriented improvement
power-sharing and compares
strategy causes 392 theshifts
suboptimality
in the LA92 ofdriving
energy
consumption.
cycle, with oneThe energy-oriented
shift power-sharing
every 4 s on average. Moreover, strategy
many causes
gear 392 shifts
states lastinfor
theless
LA92
thandriving cycle,
2 seconds.
with
In one shift with
comparison, everythe4 help
s on of
average.
shiftingMoreover, many the
stability control, gearnumber
states of
lastshifts
for less thanto275,
reduces seconds.
with one In
comparison,
shift every 19 with the help The
s on average. of shifting stability
shift duration is control,
increased the
bynumber
almost 5oftimes,
shiftsandreduces to 75, with
the number one
of shifts
shift every
lasting 19 short
for too s on average.
a time areThe shift duration
significantly is increased
reduced. by almost
However, 5 times,ofand
the reduction gearthe number
shifts givesofrise
shifts
to
lasting for too
suboptimal shortconsumption,
energy a time are significantly
which risesreduced.
from 0.8418However,
kWh tothe reduction
0.8519 kWh. of gear shifts gives rise
to suboptimal energy consumption, which rises from 0.8418 kWh to 0.8519 kWh.
Table 3. Drivability improvement and energy consumption.
Table 3. Drivability improvement and energy consumption.
LA92 Before After
LA92
Gear shifts Before
392 75 After
Gear shifts 392 75
Average
Average shifting
shifting duration
duration 4 s4 s 19 s 19 s
Shifts
Shifts lasting
lasting lessless
thanthan
2 s2 s 254
254 22 22
Energy consumption
Energy consumption 0.8418
0.8418 kWh kWh 0.85190.8519
kWh kWh

Figure 10 shows the power consumption under shift stability control. It can be seen that the
Figure 10 shows of
significant reduction the power consumption
gearshifts only leads to under shiftpower
1.2% extra stability control. It can be seen that the
consumption.
significant reduction of gearshifts only leads to 1.2% extra power consumption.
World
WorldElectric
ElectricVehicle
VehicleJournal 2018,10,
Journal2019, 9, 28
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of
of 14
14

(a)
1

0.8

Power (kWh)
0.6

0.4
before
0.2 after

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time (s)
(b)

0.8535
Power (kWh)

0.8485

0.8435

0.8385

0.8335
1435.85 1435.9 1435.95 1436 1436.05
Time (s)

Figure 10. Power consumption with and without shift stability control.
Figure 10. Power consumption with and without shift stability control.
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
This paper presents a real-time power-sharing strategy with the corresponding shifting stability
This
control paper presents
algorithm for a newa real-time power-sharing
dual-input strategy with
clutchless transmission the corresponding
system. shiftingstrategy
The power-sharing stability
control algorithm for a new dual-input clutchless transmission system. The power-sharing
could adequately distribute the power demand to the motors in the system, achieving a relatively strategy
couldoverall
high adequately distribute
efficiency. the power
To solve demand
the inherent to the motors
frequent shiftinginproblem,
the system, achieving
a decent a relatively
cost function is
designed, which considers both the minimum gear change duration and the interval between twois
high overall efficiency. To solve the inherent frequent shifting problem, a decent cost function
designed,
adjacent which
gear considers
shifts. both the
To optimize the overall
minimum gear change
efficiency and theduration and
gear shift the interval
frequency, between two
a multiobjective
adjacent gear shifts. To optimize the overall efficiency and the gear shift frequency,
optimization method is proposed, which decides both the amplitude and the duration of the cost a multiobjective
optimization
function. method
A detailed is proposed,
mathematic modelwhich decides
has been builtboth the improvements
and the amplitude andachieved
the duration
by theof the cost
proposed
function. A detailed
system have been verified. mathematic model has been built and the improvements achieved by the
proposed system have been verified.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.W. (Hanfei Wu); Data curation, H.W. (Haiqing Wang); Methodology,
H.W. (Haiqing Wang); Writing—original draft, H.W. (Haiqing Wang); Writing—review & editing, H.W. (Hanfei Wu).
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.W.; Data curation, H.W.; Methodology, H.W.; Writing—original
Funding: The financial support of this work by the Australian Research Council (ARC DP150102751) and the
draft, H.W.; Writing—review & editing, H.W.
University of Technology Sydney is gratefully acknowledged.
Funding:of
Conflicts The financial
Interest: Thesupport
authorsof this work
declare by theof
no conflict Australian
interest. Research Council (ARC DP150102751) and the
University of Technology Sydney is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
1. Apostolaki-Iosifidou, E.; Codani, P.; Kempton, W. Measurement of power loss during electric vehicle charging
References
and discharging. Energy 2017, 127, 730–742. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang,
1. J.; Li, Y.; Lv, C.; Yuan,E.;Y.Codani,
Apostolaki-Iosifidou, New regenerative braking
P.; Kempton, control strategy
W. Measurement offor rear-driven
power electrified
loss during minivans.
electric vehicle
Energy Convers.
charging andManag. 2014, 82,Energy
discharging. 135–145.
2017, 127, 730–742.
3. Fajri,Zhang,
2. P.; Lee,J.;S.;Li,
Prabhala, V.A.K.;
Y.; Lv, C.; Yuan, Ferdowsi,
Y. New M. Modeling and
regenerative integration
braking control of electricfor
strategy vehicle regenerative
rear-driven and
electrified
friction brakingEnergy
minivans. for motor/dynamometer
Convers. Manag. 2014, Test 82,
Bench Emulation. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2016, 65, 4264–4273.
135–145.
[CrossRef]
3. Fajri, P.; Lee, S.; Prabhala, V.A.K.; Ferdowsi, M. Modeling and integration of electric vehicle
4. Cipek, M.; Pavković,
regenerative andD.;friction
Petrić, J.braking
A control-oriented simulation model
for motor/dynamometer of Bench
Test a power-split hybridIEEE
Emulation. electric vehicle.
Trans. Veh.
Appl.Technol.
Energy 2016, 101,4264–4273.
2013, 65, 121–133. [CrossRef]
5. Nykvist,
4. Cipek, B.; M.;
Nilsson, M. Rapidly
Pavković, falling
D.; Petrić, J. Acosts of battery packs
control-oriented for electric
simulation vehicles.
model Nat. Clim. Chang.
of a power-split hybrid2015, 5,
electric
329–332. [CrossRef]
vehicle. Appl. Energy 2013, 101, 121–133.
5. Nykvist, B.; Nilsson, M. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nat. Clim. Chang.
2015, 5, 329–332.
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 13 of 14

6. Sabri, M.; Danapalasingam, K.; Rahmat, M. A review on hybrid electric vehicles architecture and energy
management strategies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 53, 1433–1442. [CrossRef]
7. Onori, S.; Serrao, L.; Rizzoni, G. Hybrid Electric Vehicles: Energy Management Strategies; Springer-Verlag
London: London, UK, 2016.
8. Lu, Z.; Song, J.; Fang, S.; Li, F.; Yu, L. Shifting Control of Uninterrupted Multi-Speed Transmission Used in
Electric Vehicle. In Proceedings of the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences
and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Quebec, QC, Canada, 26–29 August 2018;
p. V003T01A039.
9. Liang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Zhong, J.-H.; Yang, H. A novel multi-segment feature fusion based fault classification
approach for rotating machinery. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2019, 122, 19–41. [CrossRef]
10. He, H.; Liu, Z.; Zhu, L.; Liu, X. Dynamic coordinated shifting control of automated mechanical transmissions
without a clutch in a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Energies 2012, 5, 3094–3109. [CrossRef]
11. Liang, J.; Yang, H.; Wu, J.; Zhang, N.; Walker, P.D. Power-on shifting in dual input clutchless power-shifting
transmission for electric vehicles. Mech. Mach. Theory 2018, 121, 487–501. [CrossRef]
12. Gao, B.; Liang, Q.; Xiang, Y.; Guo, L.; Chen, H. Gear ratio optimization and shift control of 2-speed I-AMT in
electric vehicle. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2015, 50, 615–631. [CrossRef]
13. Yang, W.; Liang, J.; Yang, J.; Zhang, N. Optimal control of a novel uninterrupted multi-speed transmission
for hybrid electricmining trucks. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part D J. Autom. Eng. 2019. [CrossRef]
14. Yan, Z.; Yan, F.; Liang, J.; Duan, Y. Detailed modeling and experimental assessments of automotive dry clutch
engagement. IEEE Access 2019. [CrossRef]
15. Tseng, C.-Y.; Yu, C.-H. Advanced shifting control of synchronizer mechanisms for clutchless automatic
manual transmission in an electric vehicle. Mech. Mach. Theory 2015, 84, 37–56. [CrossRef]
16. Liang, J.; Yang, H.; Wu, J.; Zhang, N.; Walker, P.D. Shifting and power sharing control of a novel dual input
clutchless transmission for electric vehicles. Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 2018, 104, 725–743. [CrossRef]
17. Holdstock, T.; Sorniotti, A.; Everitt, M.; Fracchia, M.; Bologna, S.; Bertolotto, S. Energy consumption analysis
of a novel four-speed dual motor drivetrain for electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Vehicle
Power and Propulsion Conference, Seoul, Korea, 9–12 October 2012; pp. 295–300.
18. Zhang, S.; Xiong, R.; Zhang, C.; Sun, F. An optimal structure selection and parameter design approach for a
dual-motor-driven system used in an electric bus. Energy 2016, 96, 437–448. [CrossRef]
19. Liang, J.; Walker, P.D.; Ruan, J.; Yang, H.; Wu, J.; Zhang, N. Gearshift and brake distribution control for
regenerative braking in electric vehicles with dual clutch transmission. Mech. Mach. Theory 2019, 133, 1–22.
[CrossRef]
20. Wu, H.; Walker, P.; Wu, J.; Liang, J.; Ruan, J.; Zhang, N. Energy management and shifting stability control for
a novel dual input clutchless transmission system. Mech. Mach. Theory 2019, 135, 298–321. [CrossRef]
21. Wirasingha, S.G.; Emadi, A. Classification and review of control strategies for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2011, 60, 111–122. [CrossRef]
22. Peng, J.; He, H.; Xiong, R. Rule based energy management strategy for a series–parallel plug-in hybrid
electric bus optimized by dynamic programming. Appl. Energy 2017, 185, 1633–1643. [CrossRef]
23. Serrao, L.; Onori, S.; Rizzoni, G. A comparative analysis of energy management strategies for hybrid electric
vehicles. J. Dyn. Syst. Meas. Control 2011, 133, 031012. [CrossRef]
24. Yin, H.; Zhou, W.; Li, M.; Ma, C.; Zhao, C. An adaptive fuzzy logic-based energy management strategy on
battery/ultracapacitor hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans. Transp. Electrif 2016, 2, 300–311. [CrossRef]
25. Romaus, C.; Gathmann, K.; Böcker, J. Optimal energy management for a hybrid energy storage system
for electric vehicles based on stochastic dynamic programming. In Proceedings of the Vehicle Power and
Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Lille, France, 1–3 September 2010; pp. 1–6.
26. Zhang, S.; Xiong, R. Adaptive energy management of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle based on driving
pattern recognition and dynamic programming. Appl. Energy 2015, 155, 68–78.
27. Valenzuela, G.; Kawabe, T.; Mukai, M. Nonlinear model predictive control of battery electric vehicle with
slope information. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE International Electric Vehicle Conference (IEVC), Florence,
Italy, 17–19 December 2014; pp. 1–5.
28. Serrao, L.; Onori, S.; Rizzoni, G. ECMS as a realization of Pontryagin’s minimum principle for HEV control.
In Proceedings of the 2009 American control conference, St. Louis, MO, USA, 10–12 June 2009; pp. 3964–3969.
World Electric Vehicle Journal 2019, 10, 28 14 of 14

29. Miro-Padovani, T.; Colin, G.; Ketfi-Chérif, A.; Chamaillard, Y. Implementation of an energy management
strategy for hybrid electric vehicles including drivability constraints. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 2016, 65,
5918–5929. [CrossRef]
30. Yu, W.; Li, B.; Jia, H.; Zhang, M.; Wang, D. Application of multi-objective genetic algorithm to optimize
energy efficiency and thermal comfort in building design. Energy Build. 2015, 88, 135–143. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).