Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy
University of MichiganShanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
National Engineering Laboratory for the Automotive Electronic Control Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
h i g h l i g h t s
The power usage for battery-powered electrical vehicles with in-wheel motors is maximized.
The battery and motor dynamics are examined emphasized on the power conversion and utilization.
The optimal control strategy is derived and veried by simulations.
An analytic expression of the optimal operating point is obtained.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 18 April 2014
Received in revised form 17 July 2014
Accepted 7 August 2014
Available online 29 August 2014
Keywords:
Energy management
Battery powered
EVs
Optimal control
a b s t r a c t
Due to limited energy density of batteries, energy management has always played a critical role in
improving the overall energy efciency of electric vehicles. In this paper, a key issue within the energy
management problem will be carefully tackled, i.e., maximizing the power usage of batteries for battery-powered electrical vehicles with in-wheel motors. To this end, the battery and motor dynamics will
be thoroughly examined with particular emphasis on the power conversion and power utilization. The
optimal control strategy will then be derived based on the analysis. One signicant contribution of this
work is that an analytic expression for the optimal operating point in terms of the component and environment parameters can be obtained. Owing to this nding, the derived control strategy is also rendered
a simple structure for real-time implementation. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed
strategy works both adaptively and robustly under different driving scenarios.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In response to renewed pleadings for energy efciency and
environment protection, the electric vehicles (EVs), as a promising
substitute for the conventional ones, have received much more
attention than ever before. However, due to limited energy density
of batteries nowadays, energy management has always been the
central and critical issue in the control of EVs. Although the term
energy management may have various meanings in different contexts, all share the common goal of improving the energy efciency
and maximizing the utilization of stored energy in the batteries
equipped on the vehicle.
In order to achieve the purpose of energy management, extensive research work has focused on energy control by analyzing
the component characteristics, especially for battery-powered
EVs. For example, Capasso and Veneri veried the applicability of
lithium-based batteries for EV applications [1]. Xiong et al. and
Hu et al. proposed adaptive state-of-charge estimation methods
based on real-time measurements on the battery terminal voltage
and current [2,3]. Zhong et al. developed a method for state-ofcharge estimation of the battery pack which accounted for the difference among the cells [4]. Besides the in-depth analyses of battery performance, the study of other key components of the EV
system, such as power converters and motors, also abounds in
the literature. Pahlevaninezhad et al. proposed a Control-Lyapunov-Function based approach to regulate the input power of the
inverter so that higher energy efciencies and larger stability margin could be attained [5]. Faiz et al. designed a direct torque control
law for induction motors used in EVs with the improved overall
efciency and reasonable dynamic response [6]. Although physical
333
334
Qc
Qc
Q AeBQ k
ib
Qc Q
Qc Q
v b E0 k
Motor
Q_ ib
Converter
EMU
Battery
Motor
E0 k
tf
t0
Qc
Q AeBQ
Qc Q
dQ
tf
t0
Qc
2
i dt
Qc Q b
W1 W2
of the matter need to be considered concurrently. The rst issue is
to minimize the power loss during the energy transportation on
the vehicle. Another issue, of course closely coupled with the rst
one, is to extend the driving range as much as possible for a given
amount of energy. These two issues occur at two ends of the same
problem and are associated with two key components of the vehicle: the battery and motor. In the following discussion, we will
start with the component-level analysis.
In the analysis of battery dynamics, we will thoroughly investigate the impact of the current intensity on the power loss during
the energy transportation. The analysis will be based on a wellknown battery model which is generally used to characterize properties of different types of batteries. In this regard, our objective for
the battery analysis is to nd a discharge prole to minimize the
power loss during the energy transportation.
In the analysis of motor dynamics, we will study the coupling
relationship between the electrical and mechanical behavior of
in-wheel motors to clearly demonstrate their dynamic characteristics (which were usually neglected in the previous work). Since inwheel motors are applied in this work, the mechanical coupling
between motor and vehicle dynamics, which depends on the way
of connection between the wheel and the vehicle, will also be
investigated and claried. Given that, our objective of study on
motor dynamics is to nd an optimal operating point which minimizes the total energy usage for a given driving range.
The study of these two components goes in parallel to each
other and gets merged under the system-level analysis by combining results from them together. The overall control hierarchy will
be proposed based on results from the component-level analysis;
and then we will discuss the real time implementation of our control strategy on the DCDC converter. At the end of this section,
several practical considerations of the control strategy will be provided including the choice of lter parameters and control
frequency.
3.1. Component analysis: battery
A generic battery model proper for dynamic characterization
has been proposed by Tremblay et al. [18], who assume that the
battery state-of-charge (SOC) is the only state variable and other
characteristics of the battery can be derived from it. In their work,
the battery is modeled as a controlled voltage source in series connection with a resistance. The expression for the voltage source is
given by
Two terms can be recognized from Eq. (3): W1 and W2. Since W1 is a
function solely depending on Q, its value is independent of any specic power ow path. In other words, W1 is a state function. W2, on
the contrary, is a process function. In view of this particular energy
feature, we only need to focus on the term W2 when analyzing the
power loss since W1 will not be affected by any specic power ow
path. A closer look at Eq. (3) reveals that the term Qc/(Qc Q) is
strictly positive, which means the entire integrand of W2 is strictly
negative contributing to the energy loss during the irreversible process. The question following is whether there exist such a current
prole (power ow path) that can minimize this energy loss, that
is, to minimize W2. Reformulating this problem mathematically will
give us a minimization problem by changing the variable Q:
min
tf
k
t0
Qc _ 2
Q dt;
Qc Q
with Q t 0 Q 0 and Q t f Q f
LQ
d
L_
dt Q
where LQ and LQ_ denote the partial derivative with respect to Q and
Q_ . Expressing the Eq. (5) explicitly yields
Q_ 2 2 Q Q c Q
which is a second order nonlinear differential equation and the feasible solution to it takes the form as:
2
Q 2c b
t 2 bQ c t Q 0 ; where
4Q 0 Q c
s!
Qf Qc
1
Q0
1
1
b2
tf
Q0 Qc
Qc
Q
Notice that the term b in Eq. (7) will be positive in the discharging
process (Q0 < Qf) and negative in the charging process. The current
intensity can then be readily calculated as
2
ib
Q 2c b
t bQ c
2Q 0 Q c
335
Crr
Cd
MV
dim
v m k b x Rm i m
dt
dx
Jm
kb im C f x sL
dt
Lm
9
10
In these two equations, vm and im are the input voltage and current
to the motor, and x is the angular velocity of the motor. Rm and Lm
represent the resistance and inductance of the rotor loop, while Jm
and Cf are the moment of inertia of the rotor and coefcient of viscous friction, respectively. The electrical and mechanical parts are
linked with each other through the electromagnetic conversion factor kb, which measures how the electrical energy is transformed
into the mechanical one. In Eq. (10), sL represents the external load
on the motor, which depends on the way of the connection between
the motor and the vehicle system as well as on the vehicle dynamics. In order to link these two aspects together, here we consider a
simplied vehicle dynamics model shown in Fig. 2, with road friction, rolling resistance, and drag coefcients indicated as l, Crr,
and Cd, respectively.
The vehicle here is powered by two rear in-wheel motors.
Before the analysis two basic assumptions are made: (1) the mass
center of the vehicle body is low, so the lifting effect can be
neglected and only the forces in the horizontal direction are considered; (2) the variation of the vehicle speed is within a certain
range and thus the air resistance can be considered proportional
to the vehicle velocity v [21]. The free body diagram of the entire
system including the front wheels, the rear wheels and the main
body is shown in Fig. 3. The wheels are pin-connected with the
vehicle body.
Applying the force and torque balance to the system gives:
dx
2sL 2f 1 rw 2f 2 r w C rr M v g
dt
dv
Mv
2f 1 2f 2 qa C d AF r w x
dt
4J w
11
12
Jw
f1
f2
2sL M v r 2 4J w
dx
qa C d AF r w x C rr M v
dt
13
dx
Mv r 2w 4J w 2J m
2kb im 2C f qa C d AF r w x C rr M v g
dt
14
Jv
dx
2kb im C v x sv
dt
15
where Jv = Mv rw2, Cv = qaCdAF rw and sv = CrrMvg. Then the augmented motor model can be written as
dim
v m kb x Rm im
dt
dx
2kb im C v x sv
Jv
dt
Lm
16
17
dim
1
v m kb x Rm im
Lm
dt
dx 1
2kb im C v x sv
Jv
dt
dh
x
dt
18
19
20
where h is the traversed angle of the wheel. Dene the state vector
x = (im, x, h) and the control variable u = vm, we can rewrite Eqs.
(18)(20) in a compact form:
Cd
C rr
Jw
MV
x_ f x; u; t
21
tf
t0
v m im dt;
where
vm 2 U
22
336
we mean that all the dynamics of the state variables tend to zero,
which means two derivatives in Eqs. (34) and (35) become zero.
Thus we have:
Hx; p; u; t pT f x; u; t v s im
24
Cv
kb C v
k sv
im
x b
p3 0
Jv
Rm J v
Rm J v 2
2kb
Cv
1
im
x sv 0
Jv
Jv
Jv
25
26
23
dp1 Rm
2kb
p
p2 v s
dt
Lm 1
Jv
dp2 kb
Cv
p
p2 p3
dt
Lm 1 J v
dp3
0
dt
Hx ; p ; u ; t 6 Hx ; p ; u; t;
for all u 2 U
Hx ; p ; u ; t 0
27
28
Eq. (28) follows the fact that H does not explicitly depend on time t.
Given the discussion above, now we can discuss the unconstrained
and constrained cases separately one by one.
3.2.2. Optimum of the unconstrained case
In the unconstrained case, the condition in Eq. (27) will indicate
that u* is a stationery point of H.
Hu x ; p ; u; t juu 0
29
1
p im 0
Lm 1
30
This equation is supposed to hold for all time, and so does its time
derivative. Substituting p1 with im in Eq. (24) and collecting the relative terms, we will obtain
dim
1
2kb
Rm im
p2 v m
Lm
dt
Jv
31
2Rm im
2kb
p2 kb x 0
Jv
32
dim C v
kb C v
k sv
im
x b
p3
dt
Jv
Rm J v
Rm J v 2
33
34
35
and a quick calculation can show that the eigenvalues of this linear
system are:
k1;2
v
u 2
2
uC
k Cv
t 2v 2b
J v J v Rm
39
tf
v m im
dt v m im
t0
gh
40
C v v m k b sv
vm
2kb v m Rm sv
41
42
0
s1
2
Rm sv @
2kb A
1 1
kb
Rm C v
43
which coincides with the one obtained by solving the PMP condition. A further check of the second derivative of g at the value vm*
shows:
2
dim C v
kb C v
k sv
im
x b
p3
dt
Jv
Rm J v
Rm J v 2
dx 2kb
Cv
1
im
x sv
Jv
dt
Jv
Jv
0
s1
2
Rm sv @
2kb A
1 1
kb
Rm C v
38
Since in general Pontryagins Minimum Principle (PMP) is a necessary condition of the optimality, it is still necessary to verify the
solution to be a local minimum. Notice that our goal is to minimize
the cost function G. In the stationery case where im and x are all
constants, the expression for G can be written as:
m
37
36
d g
>0
dv 2m
44
Jw
dx
Mv
6l
dt
4
45
Since it is usually not easy to deal with state constraints in the optimal control problem, we try to translate the constraint on dx/dt
into the restriction on vm. This can be done by examining the transfer function of dx/dt with respect to vm,
337
Hs
x_ s
46
v m s
L1 H v m 6
lMv
47
4J w
After obtaining the limit umax(l), the feasible control set U will then
be the functional space of all the piecewise constant functions with
additional norm constraint: max |u(t)| 6 umax(l) for all t e [t0, tf].
It is worthwhile to note from the derivation in the unconstrained case that as long as vm* stays within the control set U,
we can always attain the global optimum. Therefore the problem
we need to deal with here is the case when vm* falls out of the
set U, i.e., when vm* > umax(l). Motivated by the fact vm* is a global
minimum of the convex function g, we expect the optimum to
occur at the value of umax(l) in the constrained case. In order to
verify this case, we follow the same line of reasoning in the unconstrained case. Again, we need to nd a stationery solution in the
sense that the dynamics of the state variables along with the costate variables tend to become zero. A slight modication for the
current case is that, in addition to the requirements on im and x,
we also require that the time derivatives of p1 and p2 should be
zero too. After solving the set of equations explicitly, we then need
to check the inequality condition of the PMP. It turns out that the
inequality always holds for any vm* > umax(l). This also conrms
with the conclusion made previously in the unconstrained case.
To sum up, we are ended with the following result for the optimal
control problem.
8
q
< Rm sv 1 1 2k2b
v m :
kb
Rm C v
48
umax l
CP
ib 1 d T
;
Dv b
v m 1 d T
Dim
Recalling the expression for Jv, Cv, and sv, it can be noted that the
optimal control variable in Eq. (48) is a function of road friction,
rolling resistance and air resistance parameters. All these parameters can be categorized as external factors depending solely on the
environment. When a vehicle is cruising on the road, these parameters may vary with time due to the changing environment, the
control variable is therefore supposed to adjust to these external
variations so that the vehicle is always operating optimally in the
current situation. On the other hand, the voltage input to the motor
is controlled by the DCDC converter. So the adaptive optimal voltage level serves as a reference signal fed to the DCDC converter
for the implementation in real time. The overall control hierarchy
is shown in the Fig. 4.
The discussion below will focus on the control of the DCDC
converter. The primary goal is to determine the appropriate
switching frequency so that the output voltage of the converter
tT
qs ds
50
Dvb and Dim are the ripple components of the voltage and current at
the steady state, and they are specied based on design requirements. The state space representation of the circuit model is shown
below, in which ib, vm, im and xm are the corresponding system
states.
dib 1
v b Rb ib q v b v m 1 q
L
dt
dv m 1
im q ib im 1 q
C
dt
dim
1
v m Rm im kb x
Lm
dt
51
52
53
54
Intrinsically this is a nonlinear time-varying system with the control in the switched state. In dealing with the system which involves
switching, a common approach is to perform the state-space averaging [22]. Instead of focusing on the full dynamics of the waveform,
we pay special attention to the low frequency averaged component,
which is of greater importance from the control perspective. The
averaging operator is dened as
Xt
1
T
xs ds
55
tT
When acting on both sides of Eqs. (51) and (52), we will have
dib 1
v b Rbib d v m 1 d
L
dt
dv m 1
im ib 1 d
C
dt
Optimizer
49
dx 1
2kb im C v x sv
Jv
dt
LP
PWM
DC/DC
Controller
Road Friction
Fig. 4. The overall control hierarchy.
DC/DC
Motor
56
57
338
ib
im
Lm
Rb
Rm
q(t)
vm
Em
vb
verr
vreff
d
Compensator
Booster
vm
tion in a city. All the road information as well as the trafc situation is incorporated into the speed of the vehicle moving ahead.
In contrast to the previous scenario, for the most cases in the second scenario, there tends to be a continuous change in the speed.
So it sets a higher demand on the controllers adaptability. Apart
from those external variations, in both scenarios some random
noises have been purposely introduced into the model parameters,
which in some sense accounts for a discrepancy between the
model and the actual system. We would like to test whether the
controller can work robustly in the uncertain environment, i.e., in
the presence of the process noise. In the following part, quantitative descriptions of the road conditions will be given for each scenario together with the initial conditions of the EV system. Then
the simulation results will be shown followed by a discussion
focusing on the vehicle behavior and controller performance. As
an illustration of the controllers optimality, vehicle behavior at a
non-optimal operating point will also be shown and compared
with that of the optimal solution. It can be noted that any variation
in the optimal vehicle speed will ultimately contribute to a total
increase in the energy dissipation. The vehicle parameters used
in both of the simulations are listed in Table 1.
4.1. Scenario I
It can be noted that in Eqs. (56) and (57), all the state variables have
been replaced with their averaged ones over the period T, and q(t)
automatically becomes d. As long as the switching period T is much
smaller than the time constant at the system input side given by L/
Rb and time constant at the system output side given by RmC, the
simplied model will sufce to capture the averaged behavior of
the system. Since it is a regulatory problem, we further linearize
the system about its operating point Xss, which yields
d~ib 1
~
Rb d ~ib 1 d v~ m v b Rbib d
L
dt
58
dv~ m 1
~
1 d ~ib ~im ib d
dt
C
59
d~im
1
~
v~ m Rm ~im kb x
Lm
dt
60
~
dx
1
~
2kb ~im C v x
Jv
dt
61
The road conditions for the rst scenario and the initial settings
of the EV system are specied in Table 2, and the corresponding
results are shown in Fig. 7.
In this scenario, the vehicle is supposed to be initially cruising at
the optimal speed of 105 rad/s on the country road when a sudden
increase in the drag coefcient occurs at t = 150 s. With this variation in the drag coefcient, the optimal operating point shifts
accordingly. The energy efciency diagrams for the change of environmental conditions are shown in Fig. 7(I), where the efciency is
dened as x/(vm im), a measure of the energy consumption per
unit angle. It can be noted that as the drag coefcient Cd increases
from 0.20 to 0.28, the optimal voltage level shifts from 66.35 V to
62.45 V and at same time the overall energy efciency drops from
0.0197 to 0.0160 (from the black curve to the grey curve). This ultimate decline indicates that more energy has to be used for overcoming the air resistance.
Table 1
Vehicle parameters used in the simulations.
Battery pack
No-load voltage vb
Internal resistance Rb
48 V
0.15 ohm
Motor
0.6 ohm
12 mH
0.25 V/rad
Vehicle dynamics
Vehicle mass Mv
Wheel radius rw
Cross-sectional area AF
250 kg
0.3 m
2 m2
Table 2
Road conditions and initial settings of the EV, Scenario I.
Road conditions
0.01
1.2 kg/m3
0.200 t<150s
0.278 t>150s
Initial settings
Battery current Ib
Input voltage to the rotor motor vm
Input current to the rotor motor Im
Angular velocity of the wheel x
132.6 A
66.4 V
80.2 A
105 rad/s
339
Fig. 7. (I) The efciency map under two conditions, (II) the response of the motor voltage, (III) the angular velocity of the wheel, and (IV) the corresponding instantaneous
energy efciency.
Table 3
Road conditions and initial settings of the EV, Scenario II.
Road conditions
0.01
1.2 kg/m3
0.200
Initial settings
Battery current Ib
Input voltage to the rotor motor vm
Input current to the rotor motor Im
Angular velocity of the wheel x
132.6 A
66.4 V
80.2 A
105 rad/s
4.2. Scenario II
The road conditions for the second scenario and the initial settings of the EV system are specied in Table 3, and the corresponding results are shown in Fig. 8.
340
Fig. 8. (I) The angular velocity of the wheel, (II) the response of the motor voltage; and (III) the corresponding instantaneous energy efciency.
5. Conclusion
In this paper the energy management for battery powered electric vehicles has been approached from a comprehensive and systematic perspective. By examining the battery and motor dynamics
respectively, we have acquired an analytic expression that relates
the optimal operating point of components to the vehicle and environmental parameters. Based on this analysis, we have proposed a
controller hierarchy suitable for real-time implementation. From
the simulation results it can be seen that the controller can adapt
to different road conditions and work robustly under uncertainty.
To achieve the performance of the proposed integrated approach,
the dynamics and couplings of the battery and motor have been
focused in this work with other minor effects being neglected for
the time being, so that the focus of this work will not be diluted.
Those minor effects will be considered in our future work, for
example, as uncertain factors or additional estimated terms in
the models. Another natural extension of the current work would
be to integrate the ultra-capacitor into the power source system.
References
[1] Capasso C, Veneri O. Experimental analysis on the performance of lithium
based batteries for road full electric and hybrid vehicles. Appl Energy 2014.
[2] Xiong R, Sun F, Gong X, Gao C. A data-driven based adaptive state of charge
estimator of lithium-ion polymer battery used in electric vehicles. Appl Energy
2014;113:142133.
[3] Hu C, Youn BD, Chung J. A multiscale framework with extended kalman lter
for lithium-ion battery soc and capacity estimation. Appl Energy
2012;92:694704.
[4] Zhong L, Zhang C, He Y, Chen Z. A method for the estimation of the battery pack
state of charge based on in-pack cells uniformity analysis. Appl Energy
2014;113:55864.
[5] Pahlevaninezhad M, Das P, Drobnik J, Moschopoulos G, Jain PK, Bakhshai A. A
nonlinear optimal control approach based on the control-lyapunov function
for an ac/dc converter used in electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Ind Inform
2012;8(3):596614.
[6] Faiz J, Sharian MBB, Keyhani A, Proca AB. Sensorless direct torque control of
induction motors used in electric vehicle. IEEE Trans Energy Convers
2003;18(1):110.
[7] Faggioli E, Rena P, Danel V, Andrieu X, Mallant R, Kahlen H. Supercapacitors for
the energy management of electric vehicles. J Power Sources
1999;84(2):2619.
[8] Dougal RA, Liu S, White RE. Power and life extension of battery-ultracapacitor
hybrids. IEEE Trans Compon Pack Technol 2002;25(1):12031.
[9] Lu S, Corzine KA, Ferdowsi M. A new battery/ultracapacitor energy storage
system design and its motor drive integration for hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE
Trans Veh Technol 2007;56(4):151623.
[10] Kuperman A, Aharon I, Malki S, Kara A. Design of a semiactive batteryultracapacitor hybrid energy source. IEEE Trans Power Electron
2013;28(2):80615.
[11] Garcia F, Ferreira A, Pomilio J. Control strategy for battery-ultracapacitor
hybrid energy storage system. In: Proc applied power electronics conference
and exposition, twenty-fourth annual IEEE. IEEE; 2009. p. 82632.
[12] Lukic SM, Wirasingha SG, Rodriguez F, Cao J, Emadi A. Power management of
an ultracapacitor/battery hybrid energy storage system in an hev. In: Proc
vehicle power and propulsion conference, IEEE. IEEE; 2006. p. 16.
[13] Laldin O, Moshirvaziri M, Trescases O. Predictive algorithm for optimizing
power ow in hybrid ultracapacitor/battery storage systems for light electric
vehicles. IEEE Trans Power Electron 2013;28(8):388295.
341
[18] Tremblay O, Dessaint L-A, Dekkiche A-I. A generic battery model for the
dynamic simulation of hybrid electric vehicles. In: Proc vehicle power and
propulsion conference, IEEE. IEEE; 2007. p. 2849.
[19] Liberzon D. Calculus of variations and optimal control theory: a concise
introduction. Princeton University Press; 2011.
[20] Chiasson J. Modeling and high performance control of electric
machines. Wiley-IEEE Press; 2005.
[21] Gillespie TD. Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics. Society of Automotive
Engineers; 1992.
[22] Kassakian JG, Schlecht MF, Verghese GC. Principles of power
electronics. Prentice Hall; 1991.