This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
Adaptive Hierarchical Energy Management De-
sign for a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Teng Liu, Xiaolin Tang, Hong Wang, Huilong Yu, Xiaosong Hu
Abstract—To promote the real-time application of the ad-
vanced energy management system in hybrid electric vehicles
(HEVs), this article proposes an adaptive hierarchical energy
management strategy for a plug-in HEV. In this work, deep
learning (DL) and genetic algorithm (GA) are synthesized to de-
rive the power split controls between the battery and internal
combustion engine (ICE). First, the architecture of the multimode
powertrain is founded, wherein the particular control actions,
state variables, and optimization objective are explained. Then,
the hierarchical framework for control actions generation is in-
troduced. GA is utilized to search the global optimal controls
based on the powertrain model provided in Matlab/Simulink. DL
is applied to train the neural network model that is connecting the
inputs and control actions. Finally, the effectiveness of the pre-
sented integrated energy management strategy is validated via
comparing with the original charge depleting/charge sustaining
(CD/CS) policy. Simulation results indicate that the proposed
technique can highly improve the fuel economy. Furthermore, a
hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) is conducted to evaluate the adaptive
and real-time characteristics of the designed energy management
system.
Index Terms—Chevrolet Volt, hierarchical energy manage-
ment, deep neural network, genetic algorithm
I. INTRODUCTION
EVELOPMENT of the green, efficient and pollution-free
D automobiles is one of the most prevalent research hotspots
in the recent decade. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
((P)HEV) has the potential to reduce pollution emissions and
fuel consumption and is common in current traffic
environments [1-4]. Energy management is a critical
technology in PHEV, which is able to determine optimal power
Copyright (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. How-
ever, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be obtained
from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
The work was supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (51705044). (Corresponding authors: Xiaolin Tang and Hong Wang)
T. Liu is with Department of Automotive Engineering and the State Key
Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing
400044, China, and also with Department of Mechanical and Mechatronics
Engineering, University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1, Canada. (email: tengliu17@
gmail.com)
X. Tang is with State Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmissions, College
of Automotive Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing, 400044, PR
China. (email: tangxl0923@cqu.edu.cn)
H. Wang and H. Yu are with Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering
Department, Waterloo University, N2L 3G1, Canada. (email:
hong.wang@uwaterloo.ca, huilong.yu@ieee.org)
X. Hu is with the Department of Automotive Engineering and the State Key
Laboratory of Mechanical Transmission, Chongqing University, Chongqing
400044, China (e-mail: xiaosonghu@ieee.org).
0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
split controls for multiple onboard energy sources [5, 6].
Nowadays, the most difficult problem in HEVs’ energy
management field is how to achieve the real-time application of
the corresponding derived strategies [7, 8].
In the initial phase of developing HEVs, the rule-based
methods are useful and powerful because they can be
implemented easily. For example, Ali et al. [9] designed a hand
-made system to extract the fuzzy logic rules from the offline
optimization results. These rules could be used in unknown
power profile and improve the system efficiency. Furthermore,
Ref. [10] formulated Markov chain-based rules to predict the
operation modes for HEV. The acquired rules can realize online
corrections for engine and motor torques and thus enhance fuel
economy. However, the humans-dependent experiences and
inflexibility to the uncertain environments restrict extensive
applications of the rule-based energy management strategies
(EMSs) [11]. Hence, academic and industrial researchers are
exploring more advanced techniques and algorithms to address
these drawbacks.
To excavate the deeper capacity of HEVs, optimization
-based approaches attracted more and more attention in the last
several years. For example, a part of them is able to obtain
globally optimal results for the special driving conditions, such
as dynamic programming (DP) [12], genetic algorithm (GA)
[13], simulated annealing (SA) [14] and game theory (GT) [15].
As alternatives, many potential methods could generate in-
stantaneous policies for the practical implementation, such as
model predictive control (MPC) [16], equivalent consumption
minimization strategy (ECMS) [17], extremum seeking control
[18] and stochastic dynamic programming (SDP) [19]. Dif-
ferent degrees of improvement are realized using these tech-
niques in hundreds of literature. However, real-time applica-
tions of the formulated EMSs in complicated driving situations
are still the struggling direction.
With the rapid development of the artificial intelligence
technologies, learning-based methods are also explored and
employed in the energy management field of HEVs. For
example, reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms [20-24] are
evaluated to be efficient tools by training an intelligent
controller based on the cumulative experiences. Recent studies
reveal that a combination of the transportation information and
big data analysis is a promising way to promote fuel economy
for many HEVs [25, 26]. As a result, deep RL has been
attempted in recent researches [27, 28], wherein deep learning
is exploited to deal with enormous driving data, and RL is
utilized to produce various branches of control action. However,
the explainability and feasibility of the generated model need to
be further studied.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
➢ Up-level: GA-based EMS for PHEV
Research Vehicle (PHEV) Powertrain Model in Autonomie
➢ Low-level: DL-enabled online controller training
Trained Model (Controller) Multiple Artificial NN
Input: speed, SoC, power demand…
Output: Control actions
Fig. 1. DL and GA-enabled adaptive hierarchical EMS framework [29].
This work focuses on developing a real-time energy
management strategy for a multimode PHEV, Chevrolet Volt.
The control components and powertrain model are provided in
Autonomie software. The property and efficiency maps are
tested and collected via standard experiments. Based on these
models, two advanced technologies are combined to derive the
online EMS through multiple steps.
This paper proposes an adaptive hierarchical energy man-
agement strategy for the Chevrolet Volt, as depicted in Fig. 1.
First, the powertrain model is built, wherein the optimization
goal, control actions, and state variables are defined. Then, DL
and GA are incorporated to extract the optimal control logics
for different driving conditions. Finally, the derived EMS is
validated in simulation tests and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL)
experiment. The real-time characters indicate that the presented
method is a promising choice in the online application.
Three innovations and contributions are underlined in this
article: 1) A hierarchical control framework is constructed to
decide the adaptive EMS for a plug-in HEV; 2) GA is leveraged
to search the optimal control actions for particular driving
conditions and DL is utilized to establish the mapping model
connecting the states and actions; 3) The proposed strategy is
evaluated in a HIL experiment to explain its effectiveness. To
the best of our knowledge, this is a novel attempt to combine
learning-based and optimization-based methods in energy
management research of HEV.
Tank Battery
Wheel
Sun
ICE Generator Motor
CL1
Carrier
CL2
Ring BK1
Fig. 2. Powertrain architecture of the studied Chevrolet Volt [29].
0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
2
GA for Parameters Optimization
ICE
Battery
Generator
Motor
Parameters for mode choice
PG set and power split control
GA function in Matlab
Optimized
EMS
Driving Conditions Information
Multiple types of driving cycles
The following content is arranged in this layout: the
powertrain model and optimization control problem are
explained in Section II. Section III describes the usage of GA
and DL for the optimal power split controls set. The related
simulation and HIL experiment results are displayed and
analyzed in Section IV. Finally, the conclusion and future work
are summarized in Section V.
II. POWERTRAIN MODEL AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT
PROBLEM CONSTRUCTION
In this section, the powertrain modeling is given that in-
cluding a battery, a planetary gear (PG) and an internal com-
bustion engine (ICE). Because of the existence of three clutches
(BK1, CL1, and CL2), the vehicle could operate in four traction
modes [29]. The mathematic formulation of these four modes is
expounded carefully. Based on the founded model, the energy
management problem is transformed into an optimization con-
trol problem with the cost function and special constraints.
A. Powertrain Architecture
The construction of the studied HEV is shown in Fig. 2 [30].
In the battery, the state of charge (SoC) is a significant factor to
represent the current electric capacity in the battery. It is chosen
as the state variable in the energy management problem and
determined as follows
SoC = − I b / Qb = −(Voc − Voc2 − 4rb Pb ) / (2Qbrb ) (1)
where Ib and rb are the battery current and internal resistance.
And Voc, Pb and Qb are the open-circuit voltage, output power
and nominal capacity of battery, respectively. It is noted that
Final the battery degradation cost is neglected in this research [29]. rb
drive and Voc vary with the SoC values, and the related functions are
decided by the experiment data. Since the motor and generator
are connected to the battery directly, Pb can be expressed as
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY 3

Pb = Pm m + Pg g (2) Twh = (1 +  )Tm − (1 +  )2 J mwh (8)

where Pm and Pg are the powers of motor and generator, and ηm
and ηg are their efficiencies, respectively. Sign θ belongs to {-1,
1}, wherein θ=1 denotes recuperation and θ=-1 means motor-
ing. The efficiency maps of motor and generator, and fuel and
efficiency maps of ICE are all obtained from bench tests. Fur-
thermore, the instantaneous fuel consumption rate is computed
as
m f = f (Te , e )
where Te and ωe are the torque and rotation rate of ICE, re-
spectively.
The PG set is composed of the sun gear, ring gear, and carrier.
where ωm is the motor speed, v is the vehicle speed, r is the
wheel radius, Tm is the motor torque and Jm=0.0289 is the motor
inertia.
2) Electric Mode 2: The values for the clutches status are de-
noted as BK1=0, CL1=0 and CL2=1, which means the motor and
generator both can supply power provided by the battery. The
battery could be charged by regenerative braking. The dy-
namics equations for this mode are shown as
(3)
Pwh = m Pm + g Pg = m  Tmm + g  Tgg (9)
Twh = (1 +  )Tm − (1 +  ) J mwh + (1 +  )  J mg (10)
2

In the Chevrolet Volt’s powertrain, the sun gear is directly where Pwh is the power demand. Tg and ωg are the torque and
connected to the motor, the ring gear is linked to the generator rotate speed of the generator.
via clutch 2 (CL2), the generator and ICE are connected by
clutch 1 (CL1) and the carrier is finally linked to the reduction 3) Range-extender Mode: For this mode, the ICE and battery
transmission [31]. Generally, the carrier speed ωc could be
can provide power in a series style and thus the clutches are
calculated by the sun speed ωs and ring speed ωr
BK1=1, CL1=1 and CL2=0. The ICE and generator set can
charge the battery and propel the vehicle. Hence, this mode is
 1
c = r +  (4) explained as
 +1  +1 s
where ρ is the teeth ratio of the ring and sun gears and is equal Pwh = m Pm = g Pg + Pb (11)
to 83/37=2.243. The torques of these three parts are further
depicted as Pg = Pe = Te  e (12)
( J e + J g )e = Te + Tg (13)
Ts =Tr /  = Tc / (  + 1) (5)
where Pe, Te, and ωe are the output power, torque and rotate
where Ts, Tr, and Tc are the torques of the sun gear, ring gear and speed of the ICE, respectively. Je=0.1988 and Jg=0.0784 are the
carrier, respectively. Based on the connected condition, these inertias of ICE and generator.
torques can be expressed as following
4) Hybrid Mode: In this mode, the clutches are switched as
Ts = Tm BK1=0, CL1=1, and CL2=1 and thus the engine can supply the
 power while the battery is charged. The dynamic expressions of
Tc = Twh / i0 (6)
this mode are
T = T + CL  T
 r g 1 e

where Twh is the required torque at wheel and i0 is the final Pwh = Pb + Pe (14)
transmission ratio. CL1∈{0, 1} indicates the open or close of
( J e + J g +  2 J m )e -(1 +  )  J mwh =Te + Tg - Tm (15)
the corresponding clutch, so are the CL2 and BK1.
TABLE I [25]
B. Operation Modes Classification ARGUMENTS OF ENERGY SOURCES IN STUDIED PHEV
As mentioned above, the three clutches decide the working Notation Implication Values
condition of different power sources, which results in diverse M Vehicle mass 1715 kg
types of operation mode [32]. The clutch symbol is equal to 1
ρ PG ratio 2.243
denotes that this clutch is close, vice versa. The studied
powertrain totally has four operation modes and they are mod- i0 Final transmission ratio 3.02
eled as r Wheel radius 0.3 m
Pg, max Generator peak power 53 kW
1) Electric Mode 1: In this mode, the status of the clutches are
Pb, max Battery peak power 110 kW
BK1=1, CL1=0 and CL2=0, which indicates that the ICE and
generator set would not provide power to the wheels. The Pe, max ICE maximum power 63 kW
transient dynamics (rotation rate and torque) at wheels can be Pm, max Motor peak power 111 kW
written as As the operation modes are complicated, seven parameters
are selected as the control actions in this energy management
wh = m / (1 +  )=vi0 / r (7) problem. They are clutches status BK1, CL1 and CL2, torque
and rotate speed of the ICE Te and ωe, and torques of motor and

0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
generator Tm and Tg. The first three actions are used to deter-
mine the operation modes and the last four ones are utilized to
calculate the optimal power spilt. The parameters of the main
components in this powertrain are listed in Table I.
C. Optimization Control Problem
After defining the state variable and control actions in the
powertrain modeling, the control objective can be served as
their output. In this research, the cost function is the sum of fuel
cost Cfu and electricity cost Cel
J = C fu + Cel
tf (16)
=  m f (t )dt  Pfu + g ( SoC (t f ), Pel )
t0
where [t0, tf] is the simulation time horizon. Pfu and Pel are the
prices for fuel and electricity, which are 0.795 US $/kg and
0.137 US $/kWh, respectively. Function g represents the
look-up table method, which indicates that the electricity cost
depends on the final SoC value and electricity price. The related
table is provided in the software Autonomie [29]. The fuel
consumption rate and SoC value are determined by the seven
control actions, which are mentioned in Section II.B (the last
paragraph).
When selecting the optimal control actions at each time in-
stant, a couple of restraints need to be followed, such as safety
and physical constraints. They are formulated as follow
 SoCmin  SoC (t )  SoCmax
 (17)
 Pb,min  Pb (t )  Pb,max
 x ,min   x (t )   x ,max , x = e, m, g
 (18)
Tx ,min  Tx (t )  Tx ,max , x = e, m, g
where the subscript min and max denote the lower and upper
bounds of the variables. The minimum and maximum values of
SoC are set as 0.3 and 0.9 in this problem. The goal of this
problem is designing an adaptive EMS, which is able to ac-
commodate unknown driving cycle. In the next section, the GA
and DL methods are introduced to search the target policy.
III. GENETIC ALGORITHM AND DEEP LEARNING METHOD
This section focuses on the methodology that is used to ex-
plore the desired control actions. First, the principle of GA is
explained to obtain optimal control actions offline with respect
to the integrated driving cycle. Furthermore, the DL method is
applied to train the mapping model to connect the inputs and
output.
A. GA Exploration
GA is a global search algorithm and it is first applied to
search the adaptive control actions for an integrated driving
cycle in our previous work [31]. This cycle combines the urban
and motorway cycles together and it is expected to generate the
appropriate parameters for the testing driving cycle. The
comparison analysis indicates the GA-based EMS has nearly
optimal performance and is potential to be employed for un-
known driving cycles. To further improve the control perfor-
mance and real-time effectiveness, DL is employed to train a
0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
4
model that can unite different GA-based EMSs. Hence, the
theory of GA is described first in this section.
GA is named from the principle of natural genetics and
represents a heuristic search procedure. The concepts of artifi-
cial intelligence and function optimization are included in GA
to develop the solutions. First, the primary generations of so-
lutions are chosen randomly. Then, better solutions with higher
performance are recombined to formulate new ones. Finally,
the original solutions are replaced by the new ones and this
process is repeated to obtain the best solution.
Three representative evolution ideas are defined in GA,
which are crossover, mutation, and selection [13]. Selection
indicates that some of the primary generations are determined
to reproduce the new offspring. The chosen rule is based on the
control objective, which means better control actions are pre-
ferred. Crossover is treated as the guidance for new offspring
production. Hybridization among the candidate control actions
is the core method to generate the new offspring. The function
of mutation is avoiding the local optimum solutions, which is
achieved by the random adjustment.
Driving Cycle Profile 1 Driving Cycle Profile 2
Genetic Algorithm (GA)
Population Size: 130
Terminal threshold: 1e-4
Crossover: 80%
Selection: 5%
Mutation: 1%
Realization: GA function in Matlab, variables constraints in
(17) and (18), search seven control actions simultaneously.
Optimal control actions (Group 1) Optimal control actions (Group 2)
Three clutches status, torque Three clutches status, torque
and rotate speed of ICE, and and rotate speed of ICE, and
torques of motor and generator. torques of motor and generator.
Fig. 3. Operation procedure of GA for energy management problem.
The global optimality of the GA-enabled EMSs has been
evaluated and analyzed in previous literature [33]. Since the
control action space is large (seven control actions), GA is
suitable to optimize them simultaneously. Fig. 3 depicts the
operation procedure of GA in this work. For a particular known
driving cycle, GA could search the optimal control actions. The
first three actions (clutches status) decide the operation mode of
powertrain, and the last four actions determine the power split
among the energy sources. The search space of these seven
control actions is BK1∈{0, 1}, CL1∈{0, 1}, CL2∈{0, 1}, Te
∈[0 200] Nm, ωe∈[0 4500] r/min, Tm∈[-350 350] Nm, Tg∈
[-200 200] Nm, respectively. If the driving cycle is unknown,
the derived control actions from other cycles could be ap-
proximate solutions for this cycle. The performance should be
evaluated by cost function in (16).
The computation process is realized by combining the GA
function in Matlab and powertrain model in Simulink offline.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
The values for population size and terminal threshold are 130
and 1e-4. Furthermore, the probability of crossover, mutation,
and selection are 80%, 1% and 5%, respectively. The service
platform is a common 2.90 GHz desktop with 7.83 GB RAM.
Specifically, the inputs of the GA function are the cost func-
tion, threshold intervals of parameters and constraints in (17)
and (18), and the outputs are total cost and optimal control
actions. The seven control actions are optimized at the same
time and their optimality depends on the information of the
driving cycle is known or not. The next subsection explains
how to exploit DL to train an online model based on the
GA-enabled control actions.
B. DL Training
DL method is one of the representation learning approaches
and consists of multiple levels of representation regularly [34].
The aim of DL is transforming several raw data into more
abstract and slighter one. As long as the collected data is
enough, complicated functions can be conducted during the
transformations. Its advantage in uncovering intricate struc-
tures has been demonstrated in many researches and thus can be
applied in many domains.
Inputs Weight Neuron
x1
ω1
x2
y h2
. ω2
. and SoC values. The outputs are the seven control actions,
. which are clutches status, torque and rotate speed of the ICE,
.
. and torques of motor and generator. The operational diagram is
. ωN
xN
Bias b Activation function
Fig. 4. Construction of a neuron in multiple ANN.
A multiple artificial neural network (ANN) [35] is one of the
DL methods, which is able to establish the function approxi-
mation between the inputs and output. It is composed of artifi-
cial neurons to form a network, which is applying a mathe-
matical model to process information. Its structure could
change with the transmitted information. Four characteristics
are included in an ANN [36]: 1) Approximate network topol-
ogy is necessary for different problems to avoid model over-
fitting; 2) ANN is able to handle redundant features because
weights are learned automatically; 3) Training time increases
along with the number of hidden layers; 4) ANN is quite sen-
sitive to the perspective of noise in the training data.
Three important layers usually exist in one ANN and they are
input layer, hidden layer, and output layer. The input layer
defines the feature data from the raw database, which would
affect the variation of the output. The hidden layer connects the
inputs and output via an activation function and is usually not
visible. The output layer aims to coalesce and concretely pro-
duce the final results. For DL methods, the features of these
three layers are learned from data instead of being designed by
human engineers.
Neurons are the basic components of the multiple ANN, see
Fig. 4 as an example. The input of a neuron is y, which is the
0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
5
sum of the weighted parameters (from the input layer) and a
bias b. Assuming the input vector is x=[x1, x2, … xN] and the
weight is k1, k2, …, kN, then the neuron input is described as
N
y =  ki xi + b (19)
i =1
where N is the index of the total inputs from the input layer. An
activation function is used to connect the neuron input and
output and the log-sigmoid activation is adopted in this article
 z = h( y )
 −x
(20)
h( x ) = 1 / (1 + e )
Finally, the output of the multiple ANN is represented as
S N
zall = h 2 ( k12j h1 ( k 1 ji zi + b1j ) + ball
2
) (21)
j =1 i =1
where h2 and h1 are the activation functions of the hidden layer
and the output layer. S indicates the total number of neurons in
the hidden layer, k1ji is the weight linking the i-th input and j-th
neuron in the hidden layer, k21j represents the weight connect-
ing the j-th source of hidden layer to the output layer neuron.
Output b2all denotes the bias of the neuron in the output layer and b1j
represents the bias of the j-th neuron in the hidden layer.
In this article, the multiple ANN is utilized to connect the
inputs and outputs in the energy management of HEV. The
h1 z inputs are the vehicle velocity, acceleration, power demand,
shown in Fig. 5. The relevant inputs and outputs for different
driving cycles are first collected. Then, this data is utilized to
train an ANN model. Different types of driving cycles enable
the trained model to adapt to various driving conditions.
For different driving conditions, the GA-based EMSs are
different, and thus the collected data is not the same. Different
driving cycles provided in the Autonomie are all employed to
gather data, such as NYC-Hev-Taxi, UDDS, WLTC, and JC08,
etc. The data size of each driving cycle is about 28 MB and the
total size of the training data is about 1.54 GB. The trained
model could guide the instantaneous control actions based on
the input information. The proposed approach is estimated in
the next section by comparing the original GA method.
IV. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
This section evaluates the optimality and adaptability of the
proposed energy management strategy. First, a comparative
analysis among the signal GA, DL combines with GA and
original charge depleting/charge sustaining (CD/CS) methods
is constructed. Signal GA indicates the control actions are
searched by original GA and they will not change all the time.
The optimality is verified by comparing the related total cost in
(16). Furthermore, a HIL experiment is formulated to test the
online application of the presented policy. The corresponding
calculative time indicates the DL and GA method can be ap-
plied in real-world environments.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY 6

Collected data: Group 1 Artificial Neural Network (ANN)

BK1, CL1, CL2, Te, ωe, Tm and Tg.
Vehicle velocity, acceleration,
power demand, and SoC values
Trained Model
Collected data: Group 2
BK1, CL1, CL2, Te, ωe, Tm and Tg.
Vehicle velocity, acceleration,
power demand, and SoC values
… Inputs: vehicle velocity, acceleration,
Collected data: Group n power demand, and SoC values.
BK1, CL1, CL2, Te, ωe, Tm and Tg. Outputs: clutches status, torque and
Vehicle velocity, acceleration, rotate speed of the ICE, and torques
power demand, and SoC values of motor and generator.
Fig. 5. Training process of ANN for collected data based on GA.
The simulation cycle and the SoC curves in three cases are
A. Comparative Analysis
described in Fig. 6. This cycle is contained in the integrated
Three control approaches are evaluated on the same driving driving cycle used for training signal GA. As the cycle is long
cycle to demonstrate the advantages of the proposed technique. enough, the primary method (CD/CS policy) transforms from
The primary CD/CS strategy implies that the vehicle is oper- CD mode to CS mode after 1400 second. Then, the SoC value is
ated as an electric vehicle before the SoC reaches the minimum equal to near 0.3 all the time, which means the ICE always
threshold. After that, the vehicle runs as an HEV to maintain a provides the power demand. Since the simulation cycle is in-
constant SoC value. The signal GA policy indicates that the cluded in training data, signal GA-based results are optimal.
control parameters are trained based on an integrated driving The SoC in DL+GA is close to that of signal GA, which indi-
cycle. Finally, the DL combines with GA (DL+GA) method cates the proposed method is nearly optimal. Furthermore, the
means a multiple ANN is leveraged to connect the inputs and control actions in DL+GA can change with the driving envi-
outputs, wherein the inputs are the vehicle velocity, accelera- ronments and accommodate many driving cycles as long as the
tion, power demand, and SoC value and outputs are the clutches training data is sufficient. Hence, the presented DL+GA could
status, torque and rotate speed of the ICE, and torques of motor be applied in real-time and achieve sub-optimal results.
and generator.

Fig. 7. Torque split in different control strategies.

The torque splits in different control approaches are depicted
in Fig. 7. As we know, the motor, ICE and generator torques are
regarded as the control actions in the studied HEV powertrain.
CD to CS Hence, Fig. 7 implies that the derived control strategies are
various in these three cases. In CD/CS method, the battery
supplies power to promote the vehicle at first, and then ICE
charges the battery and satisfies the power demand simulta-
neously. However, in signal GA and DL+GA approaches, the
ICE is activated whenever the power demand is large. The
Fig. 6. Simulation cycle and SoC curves in three control cases. hybrid mode is utilized wherein the battery and ICE powers are
managed more reasonably to realize the lower total cost.

0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY 7

regarded as benchmark. However, this information of driving

cycles was unknown to DL+GA, signal GA and CD/CS, and
thus this information was not included in the training data. It is
obvious that the performance of DL+GA and signal GA sur-
passes CD/CS. DL+GA is better than signal GA when the
driving cycles are unknown, and it is close to DP. Unfortu-
nately, this information is usually unknown in real-world en-
vironments. Therefore, whether the proposed approach is
adaptive to different driving conditions or not should be further
evaluated.
TABLE II
COMPARISON ANALYSIS OF TOTAL COST IN DIFFERENT METHODS
Cycles
Algorithms* ARB02 JC08 HYC-HEV REV2
CD/CS 1.4481& 0.2731 6.2215 0.3607
Signal GA 1.1156 0.2216 5.5103 0.3248
Fig. 8. Status of three clutches in different control cases.
DL+GA 1.0151 0.1996 5.3508 0.2989
DP 0.9852 0.1947 5.1178 0.2746
3.5s
* A 2.90 GHz microprocessor with 7.83 GB RAM was used.
&
Unit is dollar ($).
In Fig. 9, the application time implies the duration time of the
derived control strategy used in the new simulation cycle. The
3s
training process can be implemented offline and the related
2s
time is not considered. The time in DL+GA is longer than
$1.7254
signal GA because the control actions should change with the
$1.4209 driving conditions in DL+GA, however, the control actions are
$1.2323 all the same in signal GA. Moreover, these calculation times are
short enough, and thus the relevant control policy could be
applied in real-time. The signal GA and DL+GA-based EMSs
are evaluated in HIL experiment for real-time validation pur-
pose in the next section.
B. HIL Validation
Fig. 9. Total cost and application time of the compared methods.
Furthermore, the status of three clutches (BK1, CL1, and CL2) To evaluate the performance and adaptability of the pro-
posed method, a HIL platform is established to apply the signal
in these three methods are shown in Fig. 8. The differences
GA and DL+GA policies in real-time situations. The bench
between the signal GA and DL+GA approaches (purple rec-
sketch of HIL experiment is displayed in Fig. 10, which con-
tangle) illuminate that the related control actions are also dif-
sists of two main hardware. The first one is called MotoTron,
ferent. The rules for mode switching decide the working con- which is used to reserve the trained control actions, and the
ditions of each energy source, which would further determine second hardware is RT-Lab, which is exploited to save the
the power split control. Hence, the curves of three clutches in powertrain model and mimic the real vehicle’s running. Both of
Fig. 8 indicate the control strategies in signal GA and DL+GA them could transform Matlab/Simulink into C language and
are not the same sometimes. realize quick online calibration.
Finally, the different control policies reflected by Fig. 7 and
8 results in disparate costs and computation time, see Fig. 9 as MotoTron Powertrain
an illustration. It is obvious that the total costs in DL+GA and Hardware Model in RT-Lab
signal GA are lower than that in CD/CS, and DL+GA is close to
signal GA. This result testifies the optimality of the presented
MotoTune
method since the signal GA could perform well in the previous MotoHawk
work [31]. Note that, signal GA is better than DL+GA in this
section only because the simulation cycle in Fig. 6 is known a
priori and is comprised of the training data of signal GA.
To further estimate the optimality of the proposed method,
the DL+GA, signal GA, CD/CS and global optimal DP meth- Upper PC of Lower PC of
ods are applied on several driving cycles extracted from soft- RL-Lab RL-Lab
ware Autonomie [31]. The relevant total costs of these algo-
rithms are described in Table II. The driving cycles are assumed Fig. 10. Experiment platform of the HIL validation.
to be known in DP, which indicates DP-based result can be

0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
Standard cycle Real cycle
Change to unknown cycle
Fig. 11. Combined driving cycle and SoC trajectories in HIL experiment.
For the control strategy part, the matched software is in-
stalled in the upper personal computer (PC) of MotoTron. The
MotoHawk is embedded in Simulink and provides multiple
modules to record the control policy, wherein the input, output,
and control logics are defined. The MotoTune is utilized to
download the related control strategy into the hardware and
display the real-time values of selected parameters.
Fig. 12. ICE speed of signal GA and DL+GA in HIL experiment.
For the powertrain modeling part, two PCs are included in
RT-Lab. The upper PC saves the powertrain model of Chev-
rolet Volt [29], and the inputs are the control actions and the
outputs are the powertrain states. The lower PC exchanges
information with the MotoTron through the reticle. The trans-
0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
8
mitted information between lower PC and MotoTron states
variables, power demand, vehicle speed, acceleration and con-
trol actions. In RT-Lab, the powertrain is assumed to be oper-
ated in real-world environments and the sampling time is
100ms.
After building these two parts, the signal GA and DL+GA
enabled control strategies can be applied in real-time. The
verified driving cycle and SoC trajectories in these two cases
are shown in Fig. 11. To evaluate the adaptability of the pro-
posed method, the simulation cycle is combined with two parts,
the first one is a standard cycle from Autonomie (named Unif01)
and utilized in the training process, and the second part is a real
collected cycle and unknown to these two methods. The SoC
variations are different and thus the feedback control actions
from the controller are not the same. As DL is utilized to train
the control actions in many driving conditions, and thus the
DL+GA-based control strategy could be tuned to accommodate
the current driving cycle. Hence, the power split between the
battery and ICE can be managed reasonably according to the
driving situation, which illuminates the adaptability of the
presented approach.
According to the definition of operation modes in Section
II.B, ICE doesn’t work in Electric Mode 1 and 2. Oppositely, it
works in Range-extender Mode and Hybrid Mode. The ICE
speeds of signal GA and DL+GA are depicted in Fig. 12. It is
obvious that the speeds in these two methods are not the same,
e.g., from 1000 to 1250 second. In signal GA, the speed is zero,
which means the operation mode of the powertrain is Electric
Mode 1 or 2. However, the operation mode is Range-extender
Mode or Hybrid Mode in DL+GA. This difference leads to
various power split controls of the energy sources. The per-
formance of these two control policies is reflected by the fuel
cost, electricity cost and total cost in (16). After running the
driving cycle in Fig. 11, the fuel, electricity and total cost in
DL+GA is 0.4924, 0.25 and 0.7424 dollars, respectively. Then,
these three prices in signal GA are $ 0.5891, $ 0.2902, $ 0.8793.
Comparing the total cost in these two methods, DL+GA is
15.57% lower than signal GA, which implies that the proposed
method achieves better performance when the driving cycle is
unknown. For online application, the training processes are
completed previously in these two techniques. Thus, the pro-
posed method may be a better choice in real-time environ-
ments.
V. CONCLUSION
To accelerate the online application of the advanced energy
management system in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, this
article employs DL and GA to formulate the adaptive hierar-
chical EMS for the Chevrolet Volt. This paper improves the
signal GA method (the previous work [31]) by adding the
multiple ANN to connect the state variable and control actions
in different driving conditions. Simulation results first estimate
the optimality of the presented method, which indicates that the
total cost ($ 1.4209) of the DL+GA is close to that of signal GA
($ 1.2323) and lower than CD/CS ($ 1.7254). The HIL ex-
periment further demonstrates the adaptability of the proposed
method, which means the derived control policy could be ap-
plied in real-time easily and achieve better performance.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY
Future work focuses on three perspectives: 1) Apply the re-
lated EMS of this article into the real HEV and improve the
effectiveness by adding the reinforcement learning techniques;
2) Formulate more efficient EMS based on the information
provided by the intelligent transportation system. By doing this,
the efficiency and safety of HEVs in the network can be pro-
moted simultaneously by sharing the information; 3) Employ
more advanced algorithms to derive human-like EMSs for
plug-in HEVs. For example, inverse reinforcement learning
(IRL) is a promising method to train the human-like EMS by
providing the expert trajectory first.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Liu, and X. Hu, “A bi-level control for energy efficiency improvement
of a hybrid tracked vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. pp, no. 99,
pp. 1-1, 2018.
[2] X. Tang, D. Zhang, T. Liu, A. Khajepour, H. Yu, and H. Wang, “Research
on the energy control of a dual-motor hybrid vehicle during engine
start-stop process,” Energy, vol. 166, pp. 1181-1193, 2019.
[3] Y. Zou, T. Liu, D. X. Liu, and F. C. Sun, “Reinforcement learning-based
real-time energy management for a hybrid tracked vehicle,” Appl. En-
ergy, vol. 171, pp. 372-382, 2016.
[4] H. Wang, Y. Huang , and A. Khajepour, “Cyber-Physical Control for
Energy Management of Off-road Vehicles with Hybrid Energy Storage
Systems,” IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechantroincs, DOI: 10.1109/
TMECH.2018.2832019
[5] Z. Chen, L. Li, X. Hu, B. Yan, and C. Yang, “Temporal-Difference
Learning-Based Stochastic Energy Management for Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Buses,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Sys-
tems, 2018, DOI: 10.1109/TITS.2018.2869731.
[6] Y. Zou, Z. Kong, and T. Liu, “A real-time markov chain driver model for
tracked vehicles and its adaptability via stochastic dynamic program-
ming,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 8-16, 2016.
[7] H. Wang, Y. Huang, A. Khajepour, A. Soltani, and D. Cao,
“Cyber-Physical Predictive Energy Management for Through-The-Road
Hybrid Vehicles,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 2019.
[8] D. Zhou, A. Al-Durra, I. Matraji, A. Ravey, and F. Gao, “Online energy
management strategy of fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: a fraction-
al-order extremum seeking method,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Electronics, vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 6787-6799, 2018.
[9] I. Ali., M. Turki, J. Belhadj, and X. Roboam, “Optimized fuzzy
rule-based energy management for a battery-less PV/wind-BWRO de-
salination system,” Energy, vol. 159, pp. 216-228, 2018.
[10] Y. Liu, J. Gao, D. Qin, Y. Zhang, and Z. Lei, “Rule-corrected energy
management strategy for hybrid electric vehicles based on opera-
tion-mode prediction,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 188, pp.
796-806, 2018.
[11] T. Liu, Y. Zou, and D. Liu, “Energy management for battery electric
vehicle with automated mechanical transmission,” International Journal
of Vehicle Design (IJVD), vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 98-112, 2016.
[12] Y. Zou, T. Liu, F. Sun, and H. Peng, “Comparative study of dynamic
programming and pontryagin’s minimum principle on energy manage-
ment for a parallel hybrid electric vehicle,” Energies, vol. 6, no. 4, pp.
2305-2318, 2013.
[13] T. Liu, H. Yu, H. Guo, Y. Qin, and Y. Zou, “Online energy management
for multimode plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,” IEEE Trans Ind. In-
format., DOI: 10.1109/TII.2018.2880897.
[14] Z. Song, J. Hou, and H. Hofmann, et al., “Sliding-mode and Lyapunov
function-based control for battery/supercapacitor hybrid energy storage
system used in electric vehicles,” Energy, vol. 122, pp. 601-612, 2017.
[15] C. Martinez, M. Heucke, and F. Y. Wang, “Driving style recognition for
intelligent vehicle control and advanced driver assistance: A Survey,”
IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 666-676, Aug. 2017.
[16] H. Viot, A. Sempey, L. Mora, J. Batsale, and J. Malvestio, “Model
predictive control of a thermally activated building system to improve
energy management of an experimental building: Part II-Potential of
predictive strategy,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 172, pp. 385-396, 2018.
[17] Y. Zeng, Y. Cai, G. Kou, W. Gao, and D. Qin, “Energy management for
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle based on adaptive simplified-ECMS,”
0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
9
Sustainability, vol. 10, no. 6, 2060, 2018.
[18] D. Zhou, and A. Ravey, “A comparative study of extremum seeking
methods applied to online energy management strategy of fuel cell hy-
brid electric vehicles,” Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 151,
pp. 778-790, 2017.
[19] X. Wu, X. Hu, X. Yin, and S. Moura, “Stochastic optimal energy man-
agement of smart home with PEV energy storage,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2065-2075, 2018.
[20] T. Liu, X. Hu, S. Li, and D. Cao, “Reinforcement learning optimized
look-ahead energy management of a parallel hybrid electric vehicle,”
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1497-1507, 2017.
[21] E. Foruzan, L. Soh, and S. Asgarpoor, “Reinforcement learning approach
for optimal distributed energy management in a microgrid,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 5749-5758, 2018.
[22] T. Liu, Y. Zou, D. Liu and F. C. Sun, “Reinforcement learning of adaptive
energy management with transition probability for a hybrid electric
tracked vehicle,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 12,
pp.7837-7846, 2015.
[23] T. Liu, X. Hu, W. Hu, Y. Zou, “A heuristic planning reinforcement
learning-based energy management for power-split plug-in hybrid elec-
tric vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, DOI:
10.1109/TII.2019.2903098.
[24] T. Liu, B. Wang, and C. Yang, “Online Markov Chain-based energy
management for a hybrid tracked vehicle with speedy Q-learning,” En-
ergy, vol. 160, pp. 544-555, 2018.
[25] R. Langari, and J. Won, “Intelligent energy management agent for a
parallel hybrid vehicle-part I: system architecture and design of the
driving situation identification process,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol.
54, no. 3, pp. 925-934, 2005.
[26] J. Won, and R. Langari, “Intelligent energy management agent for a
parallel hybrid vehicle-part II: torque distribution, charge sustenance
strategies, and performance results,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 54,
no. 3, pp. 935-953, 2005.
[27] Y. Hu, W. Li, K. Xu, T. Zahid, F. Qin, and C. Li, “Energy management
strategy for a hybrid electric vehicle based on deep reinforcement
learning,” Applied Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2, 187, 2018.
[28] P. Zhao, Y. Wang, N. Chang, Q. Zhu, and X. Lin, “A deep reinforcement
learning framework for optimizing fuel economy of hybrid electric ve-
hicles,” In Proc. 2018 IEEE Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC),
pp. 196-202, Jan. 2018.
[29] C. Depature, S. Pagerit, L. Boulon, et al., “IEEE VTS motor vehicles
challenge 2018-energy management of a range extender electric vehicle,”
in Proc. IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Chi-
cago, Illinois, USA, Aug. 2018.
[30] C. Depature, S. Jemei, L. Boulon, A. Bouscayrol, N. Marx, S. Morando,
and A. Castaings, “Energy management in fuel-cell/battery vehicles: key
issues identified in the IEEE vehicular technology society motor vehicle
challenge 2017,” IEEE Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. pp, no. 99,
June 2018.
[31] T. Liu, H. Yu, and X. Hu, “Robust energy management strategy for a
range extender electric vehicle via genetic algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE
Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), Chicago, Illinois,
USA, Aug. 2018.
[32] S. Onori, and L. Tribioli, “Adaptive pontryagin’s minimum principle
supervisory controller design for the plug-in hybrid GM Chevrolet Volt,”
Appl. Energy, vol. 147, no. 1, pp. 224-234, 2015.
[33] M. Wieczorek, and M. Lewandowski, “A mathematical representation of
an energy management strategy for hybrid energy storage system in
electric vehicle and real time optimization using a genetic algorithm,”
Appl. Energy, vol. 192, pp. 222-233, 2017.
[34] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” nature, vol. 521,
7553, pp. 436-444, May 2015.
[35] A. Afram, F. Janabi-Sharifi, A. Fung, and K. Raahemifar, “Artificial
neural network (ANN) based model predictive control (MPC) and op-
timization of HVAC systems: A state of the art review and case study of a
residential HVAC system,” Energy and Buildings, vol. 141, pp. 96-113,
2017.
[36] S. Shanmuganathan, “Artificial neural network modelling: An introduc-
tion,” In Artificial neural network modelling, pp. 1-14, Springer, Cham,
2016.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2019.2926733, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY 10

Teng Liu (M’2018) received the B.S. degree in math-
ematics from Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing,
China, 2011. He received his Ph.D. degree in the
automotive engineering from Beijing Institute of
Technology (BIT), Beijing, in 2017. His Ph.D. disserta-
tion, under the supervision of Pro. Fengchun Sun, was
entitled “Reinforcement learning-based energy man-
agement for hybrid electric vehicles.” He worked as a
research fellow in Vehicle Intelligence Pioneers Ltd for
one year. Now, he is a member of IEEE VTS, IEEE ITS,
IEEE IES, IEEE TEC and IEEE/CAA.
Dr. Liu is now a postdoctoral fellow at Department of Mechanical and
Mechatronics Engineering, University of Waterloo, Ontario N2L3G1, Canada.
Dr. Liu has more than 8 years’ research and working experience in renewable
vehicle and connected autonomous vehicle. His current research focuses on
reinforcement learning (RL)-based energy management in hybrid electric
vehicles, RL-based decision making for autonomous vehicles, and CPSS-based
parallel driving. He has published over 30 SCI papers and 10 conference papers
in these areas. He received the Merit Student of Beijing in 2011, the Teli Xu
Scholarship (Highest Honor) of Beijing Institute of Technology in 2015, “Top
10” in 2018 IEEE VTS Motor Vehicle Challenge and sole outstanding winner
in 2018 ABB Intelligent Technology Competition. Dr. Liu is a workshop
co-chair in 2018 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV 2018) and has been
reviewer in multiple SCI journals, selectively including IEEE Trans. Industrial
Electronics, IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Vehicles, IEEE Trans. Intelligent
Transportation Systems, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics:
Systems, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, Advances in Mechani-
cal Engineering.
Xiaosong Hu (SM’16) received the Ph.D. degree in
Automotive Engineering from Beijing Institute of
Technology, China, in 2012.
He did scientific research and completed the Ph.D.
dissertation in Automotive Research Center at the
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA, between
2010 and 2012. He is currently a professor at the State
Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmissions and at the
Department of Automotive Engineering, Chongqing
University, Chongqing, China. He was a postdoctoral
researcher at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Uni-
versity of California, Berkeley, USA, between 2014 and 2015, as well as at the
Swedish Hybrid Vehicle Center and the Department of Signals and Systems at
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, between 2012 and
2014. He was also a visiting postdoctoral researcher in the Institute for Dy-
namic systems and Control at Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH),
Zurich, Switzerland, in 2014. His research interests include modeling and
control of alternative powertrains and energy storage systems.
Dr. Hu has been a recipient of several prestigious awards/honors, including
World Emerging Sustainability Leaders Award in 2016, EU Marie Currie
Fellowship in 2015, ASME DSCD Energy Systems Best Paper Award in 2015,
and Beijing Best Ph.D. Dissertation Award in 2013.

Xiaolin Tang received B.S. degree in Mechanics engi-

neering and M.S. Degree in Vehicle Engineering from
Chongqing University, China, in 2006 and 2009, respec-
tively. He received the Ph.D. degree in Mechanical Engi-
neering from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China, in
2015. He is currently an Assistant Professor at the State
Key Laboratory of Mechanical Transmissions and at the
Department of Automotive Engineering, Chongqing
University, Chongqing, China. His research focuses on Hybrid Electric Vehi-
cles (HEVs), Vehicle Dynamics, Noise and Vibration, and Transmission
Control.

Hong Wang is currently a Research Associate of Me-

chanical and Mechatronics Engineering with the Univer-
sity of Waterloo. She received her Ph.D. degree in Beijing
Institute of Technology in China in 2015. She is an
IEEE/CAA member. Her research focuses on the path
planning control and ethical decision making for auton-
omous vehicles and component sizing, modeling of hy-
brid powertrains and power management control strate-
gies design for Hybrid electric vehicles; intelligent control
theory and application.

Huilong Yu (M’17) received the M.Sc. degree in me-

chanical engineering from Beijing Institute of Technol-
ogy, and the Ph.D. degree in mechanical engi-neering
from Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy, in 2013 and
2017, respec-tively. He is now a Research Fellow of
advanced vehicle engineering with the University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, CA. His research interests include
vehicle dynamics, optimal control, closed loop control,
and energy management problems of conventional,
electric, hybrid electric and autonomous vehicles.

0018-9545 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.